Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Weston-super-Mare, in the room of David William Ernest Webster, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

PETITION

Experiments on Living Animals

Mr. Bessell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a Petition, signed by more than 4,000 citizens of my constituency and neighbouring areas, concerning the practice of vivisection.
The Petition states that the practice of experimenting on living animals causes pain and suffering, and disputes the value of such experiment.
The Petitioners maintain that time and money spent in this way could be better diverted to humane avenues of investigation.
I beg the House to note that I do not wholly subscribe to the views expressed by the Petitioners.
The Petition concludes:
wherefore your Petitioners pray that the practice of experimenting on living animals be prohibited by law by your honourable House and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

S.S. "Queen Elizabeth 2"

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the turbine faults in "Queen Elizabeth 2".

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on Sir Arnold Lindley's independent assessment of the Queen Elizabeth 2's turbines prepared for his Department; and if he will publish the report.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I have now given in a Written Answer on 3rd March the full text of the letter Sir Arnold Lindley sent to me about his investigations. I am glad that the companies concerned were able to accept his assessment.—[Vol. 779, c. 42–5.]

Sir G. Nabarro: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for accepting my suggestion in a recent Parliamentary Question that there should be a full technical inquiry and for laying this so expeditiously before the House, may I ask whether he will apply himself to the consequential losses arising from the six months delay in this ship's sailing? Who pays those losses—John Brown, or Cunard, or the public purse?

Mr. Benn: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, but it really is not for me as a Minister to venture an opinion about the interpretation of the contractual relationships that exist between Cunard, which is, as a shipping company, sponsored by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the suppliers of the ship. It is not possible to answer that Question.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend note that in paragraph 13 Sir Arnold tells us that there can be no criticism whatever of the work of the men who were engaged on this ship, and does not that confirm all that I have said in this House on previous occasions?

Mr. Benn: I should be happy for hon. Members on both sides of the House to find confirmation in Sir Arnold's report of what they have been saying. It is perfectly true; the workmanship was not at issue here. The trouble was caused by resonance caused by steam excitation, which led to fatigue and ultimately a break.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: We all welcome the report from Sir Arnold, and I congratulate him on the speed with which he has completed it. Will the right hon.


Gentleman say whether he is now giving further thought to providing test facilities for turbines of this kind? They will not often be required, but at present the ship is the only test bed.

Mr. Benn: The difficulty with steam turbines used in ships is that they are all one-off jobs, unlike aircraft turbines where large numbers are produced. Secondly, in order to have a full-scale testing facility capable of testing under operating conditions it would be necessary to have an enormous power station to feed it. We have, however, accepted with great interest Sir Arnold's recommendation that we should look again at our research and development facilities, and we have for some time been waiting for a proposal on this point.

Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend take note that some £8 million worth of export orders for similar turbines have been obtained this week, and will he regard this as a reflection of the contribution made by Tyneside and Clyde-side? Will he also thank Sir Arnold for his report?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's last comment. Our gratitude is owed to Sir Arnold Lindley for having carried through a difficult mission very expeditiously, and for having drawn attention to the fact that turbine trouble of this kind is not at all uncommon in other countries. What my hon. Friend says about the fresh orders for John Brown Engineering confirms the excellence of that firm in this field.

Shipbuilding

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that world shipbuilding construction in 1968 was 16 million tons, approximately, including 8 million tons, approximately, from Japan and 900,000 tons, approximately, from Great Britain or less than six per cent. of the world construction; and what steps he is taking to enlarge British shipbuilding.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I am aware of the position, which is largely the result of the small flow of orders in 1966–67. The Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, provided substantial assistance to promote the

industry's ability to compete in world markets, and last year the tonnage of new orders taken by the British industry was the largest since 1951.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman note that the proposal of the British Steel Corporation to raise the price of hull steel plate by 9·3 per cent. of an average of £47 per ton for that steel would have a calamitous effect on the obtaining of future orders by the shipbuilding industry, where margins are already at a dangerously low and uneconomic level? Will he go to the Prices and Incomes Board and frustrate this increase in price?

Mr. Fowler: We have debated this on several occasions when the hon. Gentleman has not been present. Steel is an important element in the total cost of a ship, but it would be best to await the report of the Board for Prices and Incomes on the proposed new structure and level of steel prices before deciding any effect on the profitability of existing orders or on the shipbuilders' ability to obtain further orders.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Contrary to the pessimism about, and derogation of British shipbuilding that we have just heard from the other side of the House, is my hon. Friend aware that within the past few days Hall, Russell and Co. Ltd., of Aberdeen, has secured a contract from Hamburg to build the largest ship ever built in Aberdeen which is a tribuate to the shipbuilding potentialities of Aberdeen?

Mr. Fowler: We in the Department are well aware of the virtues of Aberdeen and of its excellent representation in the House.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Technology how much shipbuilding tonnage, and what value of shipbuilding, has been given to foreign shipyards by British shipowners during the past 12 months; and what are the figures for new orders abroad.

Mr. Fowler: Orders for United Kingdom registration placed in foreign shipyards during 1968 amounted to 2·8 million gross tons of a value estimated at £205 million. The foreign order book for United Kingdom registered vessels at the end of that year totalled 4·6 million


gross tons estimated to be worth £338 million.

Mr. Leadbitter: While my hon. Friend can from time to time report an improvement in shipbuilding in this country, is he aware that his Answer will give rise to some concern, remembering that British shipbuilding does not have as high a share of world shipbuilding as it should have, bearing in mind our substantial shipbuilding capacity? Are our credit terms sufficient to attract British ship owners to place orders in British yards?

Mr. Fowler: We now have perfectly good and competitive credit terms. This is what the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, was partly about and what the extension of that Measure, presently before Parliament, is also about. Indeed, the percentage of orders for United Kingdom registration placed in British yards has been rising, on average, over the past three years, and quite sharply, too.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of Questions about shipbuilding on the Order Paper today reflects the concern which is felt on both sides of the House about the state and potential of this industry? Will he contact the Minister of Employment and Productivity to see whether the multitudinous trade unions in this industry have anything to do with the general state and efficiency of the industry?

Mr. Fowler: I do not quite know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring in that only two Questions on this subject have so far been asked. That may reflect something about the interest of the House in the matter. I assure him, however, that there has indeed been a dramatic change in trade union attitudes in yards throughout the country since the passage of the Shipbuilding Act.

Total
Percentage for





Gross Tons (Million)
United Kingdom Registration
Export


Merchant Vessels Only


Order Book at end of 1968
…
…
3·6
65
35


New Orders placed in 1968
…
…
2·6
57
43

Estimated Value (£ million)




Merchant and Naval Vessels


Order Book at end of 1968
…
…
607
72
28


New Orders placed in 1968
…
…
316
64
36

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Technology what is the total value and tonnage of shipbuilding in British shipyards; what are the figures related to new orders; and what proportion in each case is attributable to orders from British shipowners and foreign shipowners, respectively.

Mr. Fowler: Since the information is best given in the form of a statistical table, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Leadbitter: I will read with interest the information which my right hon. Friend is circulating. Is he aware that there has been a substantial improvement in the state of shipbuilding in Britain and that, as a result, industrial relations in this industry have also improved? Would he agree, however, that this is the time when we should be increasing our capacity to attract to our yards a higher share than they are now getting of world shipbuilding?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend will have noticed the grant made by the Shipbuilding Industry Board towards the construction of a new building dock at Belfast. He will agree that it is precisely in this sphere that we must increase our capacity if we are to be competitive with other countries, notably Japan.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Has there been any improvement in the delivery dates of shipbuilding firms in this country?

Mr. Fowler: The record of the British industry as a whole last year was splendid. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we watch this matter extremely closely. I am satisfied that, with one or two normally much-publicised exceptions, ships from British yards have been delivered on time and even before time.

Following is the information:

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement about British participation in the European Launcher Development Organisation.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): E.L.D.O.'s latest plan (known as T9) has substantially different aims from those agreed by the European Launcher Development Organisation countries in 1966, and is, therefore, a "further programme" in which any member is entitled to declare that it is not interested, and hence not liable to contribute to the cost. This we have done, but we have offered to continue to contribute to E.L.D.O. at a somewhat reduced level; we intend to devote rather more than our net saving to a European satellite applications programme.

Mr. Marten: Have Ministers now agreed to have a European space authority? What is the budget for the new programme, and what conversations has the Minister had with the President of E.L.D.O.?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have had a series of conversations with the President of E.L.D.O., but the differences of the member countries—ourselves and Italy on the one hand and the others—are not yet resolved. The E.L.D.O. budget is proceeding on a month-to-month basis at present.

Mr. David Price: What progress has been made in efforts to merge E.S.R.O. and E.L.D.O. into a single European space authority which will be mission-orientated? One of the great disadvantages of E.S.R.O. is that it is not mission-orientated.

Mr. Mallalieu: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. All these matters are being discussed.

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what is the highest price at which he estimates the Concorde aircraft will be sold; and if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with interested parties on the eventual price:

(2) how many Concorde aircraft he estimates will need to be sold at the highest price that is expected to be received to recover all research and development costs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: The selling price is regularly reviewed with the manufacturers. But it would not be right for me to speculate about the final price since this will be a matter for negotiation between the manufacturers and the airlines. We have accepted that a substantial part of the research and development costs will not be recovered.

Mr. Barnett: As the taxpayers will have to foot the bill at the end of the day, is not it right that they should have an idea of what the estimated cost will be to them as a proportion of the research and development? Whilst one welcomes the prestige from this aircraft, will not it be of little importance by comparison with the financial cost to the taxpayer in due course if it is not a viable proposition?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend points out that if Concorde fails it will be a costly venture. That is true. But, although I am very keen to make available to the House as much information as I can, it is not for me to estimate what the return will be until we know finally what the cost of development is and what the market is. Even if the cost of development were to rise, if the market were to be very large indeed it would turn out to have been an investment where the taxpayer would not lose. I am giving the best estimate I can, but on the present estimates we do not expect to recover our full research and development costs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it intended to impose a royalty payment on the sale of each aircraft with a view to recovering for the Exchequer at any rate some part of the massive expenditure on R and D?

Mr. Benn: Most certainly, a system of levies based on the number of aircraft sold, and rising as the number of aircraft sold rises, has already been the subject of discussion. This is the way in which we would get back as much of our R and D costs as we would hope to recover.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on progress with the Concorde project.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the progress of the Concorde project.

Mr. Benn: The successful first flight of 001 on 2nd March has been a tremendous encouragement to the thousands of people on both sides of the Channel who have been working so hard for the success of this project. B.A.C. hopes to have the second prototype flying about April or May. Concorde now has to prove itself in flight-testing.

Mr. Hastings: May I offer my sincere congratulations, which I am sure will be widely echoed in the House as a whole, to all those who were involved in Concorde's first flight, those in industry and in the Establishments?
Can the Minister say, in view of the Americans' time lag with their S.S.T., which is about five to seven years, what the latest estimate of initial sales of Concorde is likely to be in numbers of aircraft, even if he cannot give the value?

Mr. Benn: First, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, I sent messages to both the British and the French firms and to André Turcat and his crew on the occasion of Concorde's first flight.
It is difficult for me to answer the question authoritatively, because it depends on the selling price, which we do not yet know. It depends on what restrictions, if any, are placed upon supersonic flying over land. Within the broad band of figures which have been published, it is not possible to be more exact.

Mr. Onslow: I hope the Minister accepts that this side of the House would like to be associated with the congratulations which he has expressed so much more generously than the Prime Minister did yesterday.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall require to be assured that there is no danger of a hold-up in the funds necessary to establish the economic viability of Concorde on either side of

the Channel? Can the Minister say at what stage he expects the necessary sonic boom tests to be held?

Mr. Benn: The progress of the flight testing depends on technical factors on which it would not be sensible for me to pronounce. The firms have made a statement on the timetable that they foresee. We will have to await the progress of those tests.

Mr. Ellis: Whilst greatly heartened by the success of the first flight, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises that the delays on the engine side on the production runs for Rolls-Royce caused a substantial number of redundancies? Will he ensure that when he comes to make decisions, in accordance with the plan that he is unfolding, they are taken as quickly as possible so that the effects of any delays will not mean that we have more men redundant than necessary?

Mr. Benn: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I have discussed this matter with the people concerned at Rolls-Royce in Bristol. But I must make clear that decisions about Concorde will be made by customers for it, not by Ministers acting alone. We have to ascertain the market prospects for this aircraft. We have already ordered longdated materials. There are two prototypes and two pre-production aircraft being built. I think that the slight slippage in the progress will inevitably affect the production programme.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware of the immense sense of pride which many people felt in the achievements of technologists in this country and in France on the take-off on Sunday? Is he further aware that if the continuing trials are successful, this aircraft will have a greater and more beneficial effect upon Britain's exports than anything which has happened in recent years?

Mr. Benn: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that a successful Anglo-French supersonic airliner flying across the Atlantic will mean that we should hear a little less about the technological gap.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology if he is now in a position to quantify the substantial rises that have taken place in the development costs of the Concorde.

Mr. Benn: Not yet, Sir. The development costs are still under review between the two Governments.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is bound to cause some disquiet among many hon. Members who have the most prudent regard for public expenditure, especially in view of the reports of successive Public Accounts Committees on this project? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he hopes to conclude the discussions he is having with the French authorities so that Parliament may be informed about this vital figure?

Mr. Benn: We are talking not about actual public expenditure but about estimates of development costs. As the project proceeds, and as the firms, particularly now that the flight test has taken place, have the opportunity to observe the aircraft under development conditions, they come along from time to time with proposals, which they cost themselves, for further work. These then have to be processed by the two Governments and an agreed figure arrived at by two Ministers. It would be wrong to leap out of this partnership to answer a question before I am in a position to give an answer. The actual costs are published. We are talking about the estimate of further development work that requires to be done.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend is talking about leaping out of the partnership. Is it not the case that he is unable to leap out of it even if he wants to do so? At what point would it be possible to break the agreement? [An HON. MEMBER: "At no point."] Is that the case? Is it the fact that my right hon. Friend can never escape from this agreement if he wants to do so?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has raised a separate point, which the Attorney-General would have to answer, about interpreting the agreement. I was talking about the working relationship which I must have with my partners in France if this progress is to be handled in a businesslike and competent way. That was the only point to which I was referring.

Mr. David Price: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that until the prototypes have gone supersonic and done their full flight tests it is impossible to

give any indication of what the ultimate market will be, and the extent to which the R and D costs may be recovered or not, and that all speculation is entirely in the air until the prototypes have completed their flight tests?

Mr. Benn: That is not absolutely accurate, because if there were insuperable or expensive difficulties which came to light early it would be possible to say before the flight tests that the thing was not a success. What one cannot be sure of until the end of the tests is that it has succeeded, but with that qualification it is true that Concorde has to prove itself.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated effect on the prospective sales of the Concorde aircraft arising from the decision of the German authorities to prohibit supersonic flight over Germany.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I understand that the Federal German Government's present view is that supersonic flights should be prohibited over populated areas. The firms' published forecasts of Concorde sales already assume that there will be some restrictions on supersonic flight over such areas.

Mr. Biffen: Inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are acting on behalf of British taxpayers whose money is invested in the development costs of this aircraft, can he say what view the Government take about this? Do they feel that it would be prudent to base a market forecast of likely sales for this aircraft on the assumption that it would not be allowed to fly over land areas in Western Europe or North America?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is the basis on which the provisional estimate for sales has been made, that there will be a total ban on overland flights, and that the plane should be able to take a trip to New York with a full pay-load.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend comment on the conflicting reports about noise levels? There have been some encouraging reports from Sunday's highly successful first test that the noise levels on take-off were not as great as had been expected. Can my hon. Friend give his view——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries must be linked to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Boston: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I understood that this was connected with supersonic flights and also with noise——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about Germany banning supersonic flights. The hon. Member must ask a supplementary question on that.

Mr. Boston: Perhaps I might put it this way: there is concern in various places about supersonic flights and noise levels, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can comment on this and say whether the position seems to be more encouraging than we were led to expect from some directions previously?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think Sunday's flight was a fair test of noise, because the engines were not on full thrust, but the reports, so far as they went, were encouraging.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now announce the date of the first flight of 002 Concorde at present being ground tested at Filton, Bristol.

Mr. Benn: The manufacturers estimate that the first flight of 002 will take place in April or May.

Mr. Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend arrange, in view of the widespread public interest that exists, for this occasion to be given the maximum Press and television coverage, in contrast to the unfortunate affair at the time of the roll out?

Mr. Benn: I will discuss this informally with the firms. I know that there will be a great deal of public interest in the first flight of the 002, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point.

Crossbar Telecommunications Equipment

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what steps his Department has taken to assist in the development of Crossbar telecommunications equipment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): No financial assistance was sought

from the Department, but, in view of the export prospects of Crossbar equipment, we were pleased to be associated with the Post Office in its decision to adopt it.

Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is good illustration of the good potential for British technology? As it has such good economic prospects for us, I suppose one could say that the knockers of British technology have once again got a bloody nose.

Dr. Bray: The prospects for Crossbar and other telecommunications exports are good, and the collaboration between the Post Office and manufacturers in furthering these exports is very close.

Machine Tools (Left-Handed Operators)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what assistance his Department has given to the development of technology which involved adapting machine tools for left-handed operators.

Dr. Bray: None, Sir. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that it is necessary to design or adapt machine tools to meet the special requirements of left-handed people. The advances made in the automatic control and loading of machine tools will, in any event, reduce such problems as may exist.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this has been discussed very widely in engineering and industrial circles? Some research has been done into this. Does he agree that if it were developed it would have great potential for British industry? Will he consult my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about the impact this could have on industrial retraining?

Dr. Bray: Yes, Sir. I am aware of some recent discussion not only in the Press but on the radio. But it is not obvious that a left-handed machine tool would necessarily be used more by left-handed people than by right-handed people, and the results would not necessarily be very much better.

Ship Repairing Industry

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will introduce legislation, similar to that enacted in the United States of America, details of which have been sent to him, to ensure that British shipowners have their vessels repaired in home yards.

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said on 19th February, we do not consider that this would be in our ultimate interest.—[Vol. 778, c. 124.]

Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it can hardly be in our ultimate interest to have a system of discrimination practised by a number of countries against British ship repairing yards? Surely the time has come either to take an initiative to alter the terms of such Acts as the United States Tariff Act, 1930, and try to get rid of discrimination, or at least to give the British ship repairer some equality of treatment?

Mr. Fowler: On the one hand, the United States flag fleet is relatively small; it is heavily subsidised and does not participate in international cross-trades in the same way as the British fleet; so the conditions are different. On the other hand, the aim of British ship repairers should be to become more competitive. This is one field in which the United States is not notably competitive, and it is hardly an example to follow.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that because more and more British ships are being repaired abroad today the Government face the alternative of providing a positive incentive to this industry or the stark reality of mass unemployment in the towns that are almost entirely dependent on ship repairing?

Mr. Fowler: To my mind, the industry does not require an incentive other than that provided by the commercial situation to ensure that it becomes more competitive. I hope that it will, and that we shall continue to maintain and increase our share of world ship repair.

Mr. David Price: Does the Minister agree with the Geddes Report when it identifies the fact that British ships sail the oceans of the world and should be repaired where commercially convenient, and that to tie repairs of British ships to British yards by legislation, as the

Question suggests, would be detrimental to British shipping and the invisible earnings it brings into this country?

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have considered the interests of the shipping industry and its earnings as well as the interests of the ship repair industry. Many British ships trade far from our shores. It is often impracticable for them to be repaired in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will set up an inquiry into the ship repairing industry with the aim of grouping or regrouping the industry to ensure greater efficiency.

Mr. Fowler: The Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Council set up under the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1967, will no doubt advise us if it considers Government initiative in this matter useful and timely.

Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat anomalous that, at a time when various schemes for rationalisation affecting our ports, shipbuilding and shipping industries generally are being pursued, this important aspect of these various trades has so far not been subject to any comprehensive inquiry?

Mr. Fowler: There is nothing anomalous in this at all. The Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association knows of our interest in the future development of British ship repairing and of our willingness to arrange discussions if it is felt that they would be useful.

Mr. McMaster: Has not the ship repairing industry in Britain rather become the orphan of the British shipping and shipbuilding industries? Will the Minister see whether the same type of assistance can be given to the British ship repairing industry as our shipbuilding industry is receiving?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reorganisation and assistance provided under the 1967 Shipbuilding Industry Act does not cover ship repair. Any discussion about structural changes in the ship repair industry, the possibility of action by the I.R.C. or under the Industrial Expansion Act, would need consideration. But my view is that commercial competitiveness is the key to this matter.

Mr. Heffer: On commercial competitiveness, is my hon. Friend aware that in some yards operating in other parts of the world the workers get such ridiculously low wages that it is impossible for our workers to compete with them? Is there not a need to look at this matter again and consider giving real assistance to the ship repairing industry? I should know, because I worked in the industry for many years.

Mr. Fowler: Many factors affect the possibility of attracting particular repair orders to British yards. One is our geographical situation. On long tanker runs it is demonstrable that many companies prefer to undertake repairs halfway on the return journey. We are badly situated in this respect.

V/STOL Aircraft Projects

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of vertical take-off and landing civil aircraft.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made with the consideration of the vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing aircraft projects submitted to him.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 26th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 304.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is it too soon to start discussions with European countries both on the joint marketing of V/STOL aircraft and on the provision of landing facilities in cities in Europe?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think it is too soon to start considering those matters. No doubt that is being done.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the Minister aware that it is much later than he thinks? Has he seen the reports that the American Sikorski Company will have an 86-seater 350-miles range helicopter in service with airlines in 1973? Will the Minister assure the House that no time will be wasted in pronouncing on the British scheme which he told me a month ago is in the Minister's head?

Mr. Mallalieu: Certainly no time will be wasted. The firms concerned have

draft specifications on which they are working, and we hope to have their proposals on them in about four months.

European Airbus

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement on the European Airbus project.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Technology when he will announce his decision upon the application by the British Aircraft Corporation for Government financal support in the production of the BAC3–11.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to announce the Government's decision on the Jumbo Jet.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress of the European Airbus project.

Mr. Benn: My Department is continuing its evaluation of both the A300B and the BAC3-11, and I am not yet in a position to say what the outcome will be. The French and German Governments have been informed of the proposals put forward by B.A.C.

Mr. Onslow: Does the Minister agree that the market is the best place for tests between the technical merits of these two aircraft to take place? Does he also agree that, whichever decision he may reach, it will not make political sense if it is not thoroughly commercial?

Mr. Benn: The view that we take about new aircraft projects is that the market has to be established before we are prepared to go ahead. This is a consideration which I am glad to say that B.A.C. fully accepts.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How many months have been consumed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in carrying out these evaluation studies to date, and how many more months does the Minister except to go by before they are complete?

Mr. Benn: I suppose about 11 or 12 weeks. The A300 was withdrawn by the consortium just before Christmas, and


the period between that date and now is the only time occupied by my Department with an evaluation of the A300B.

Mr. Rankin: As by 1980 the number of passengers travelling in aircraft will be, on average, about 5½ times greater than in 1967 and cargo will have increased by 8 times, does my right hon. Friend not think that he should begin to revise his views on whether the Jumbo Jet 250 will fill the Bill? Will it not be too small by then?

Mr. Benn: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that, although this is the greatest growth market in many ways in the world, it is calculated that by 1985 the value of aircraft in service will be £45,000 million. But we have still to get the right aircraft. Undoubtedly there will be a demand for the very big jets of the 747 type, for the Airbus 250 and for smaller feeder aircraft, and there will be a big chunk of the market for big supersonics.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best chance of commercial success for this plane lies in its being a joint European effort, in which we have the chance of the French market and probably of the German market as well? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to go it alone as one country seems beyond our powers, and that it would be more sensible to make this a joint European effort, particularly having regard to what has happened with the Concorde?

Mr. Benn: It is true that one of the major motivations for European aircraft policy is that it brings a market and some share of the research and development costs with it, as well as the fact that it brings the firms together. This is one reason why the Concorde was started in the form in which it was, why the Jaguar has been done in this way, and why the airbus has been discussed. At the same time, even international projects have to be able to establish that there is a market for them; otherwise one runs into the same difficulties internationally that we have sometimes experienced nationally.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the German and French Governments still wish to proceed

with a joint venture on the basis of the 300B proposals?

Mr. Benn: The German Government have made an announcement, and the French Government have indicated that they will shortly be reaching a decision. I have made it my business to keep in touch with them and indicate the thinking, which is a market-orientated thinking, that dictates our attitude towards these projects.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the value of the work already undertaken by Hawker Siddeley Limited in connection with the European airbus, and the extent to which that work is relevant to the A300B.

Mr. Benn: Between July, 1967, and December, 1968, Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited has done work to the value of about £1·35 million in connection with the A300 European Airbus programme. The consortium has indicated that about 90 per cent. of the work done on the A300 is relevant to the A300B design.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind, once again, that time is of the essence for commercial success in all these things and do what he can to expedite a decision in this field?

Mr. Benn: I accept that time is very important, but I would rather wait until I am sure that I am right about something than go forward simply on the ground that there was a general feeling that we should move ahead. We must get these difficult decisions right.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimated European requirement, British European Airways, Air France and Lufthansa, combined, for a short medium range transport aircraft seating 250 passengers and of the timing of these requirements.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I estimate the combined requirement of these three airlines for this general class of aircraft by the early 1980s to be about 75 to 100 aircraft. Air France is likely to need aircraft of this type as early as possible, but the requirements of B.E.A. and Lufthansa are less pressing.

Mr. Howarth: As there is no doubt about this requirement being quite firm, does my hon. Friend accept that it is necessary to make a decision either on the 300B or the 311 within the next six months, or are we to be pre-empted by the Boeing proposals which were announced last month?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is important not to make a decision until the whole market has been properly evaluated for both contenders

Aircraft Manufacture (European Co-operation)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technologoy if he will make a statement on future co-operation with other European Governments in aircraft manufacture.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 29th January, various proposals for new aircraft projects are now under consideration.—[Vol. 776, c. 1310–11.]

Mr. Fortescue: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the Minister of Technology's reported statement recently that future co-operation is likely to be company to company, rather than Government to Government, and would he agree that any co-operation which might lead to the loss of design leadership capability in this country might be disastrous?

Mr. Mallalieu: We want to keep design leadership. All my right hon. Friend's statements are always admirable. International co-operation can take many forms—Government to Government or industry to industry.

Short Brothers and Harland Limited

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will now make a statement on his plans for the capital reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland Limited;

(2) if he will now make a statement on his discussions with the Rohr Corporation concerning Short Brothers and Harland Limited.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member

for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 29th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1311–2.]

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend said on 27th November that there were not yet firm negotiations with Rohr Corporation? Can he say whether firm negotiations have been commenced, and why this is taking so long? On the capital reconstruction side, can the hon. Gentleman say why this cannot proceed simultaneously with these negotiations, as the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation seem to be going at a fairly leisurely pace?

Mr. Mallalieu: Capital reconstruction and the Rohr negotiations are closely interlinked, and one will be coincidental with the other. It is difficult to say whether the negotiations with the Rohr Corporation are firm or not, but we are in regular contact with Rohr, and we hope to get some firm proposals in the near future.

Mr. McMaster: Why should the capital reconstruction of Short Brothers be interlinked with the deal with Rohr, which may fall through? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable management difficulties created by the Government's delay in this field, and will he do all he can to expedite a proper financial reorganisation of the company.

Mr. Mallalieu: We shall do all we can to do this speedily but I do not think it would make sense to have two bites at that cherry, to have capital reorganisation now and then another if and when the negotiations with Rohr are finalised.

Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman be more frank with the House? What is holding things up? When shall we get a decision?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am always frank with the House. We are waiting for Rohr to deal with certain points that we put to it, and we hope that it will deal with them expeditiously.

Inventors (Rewards)

Mr. Horden: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will discuss with the National Research Development Council alternative methods of rewarding successful inventors.

Dr. Bray: While my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the day-to-day actions of the National Research Development Corporation, I understand that N.R.D.C. has no one set of terms with private inventors but seeks to negotiate terms with the inventor to suit the particular case.

Mr. Horden: Is it not, however, the case that inventors in this country are treated less favourably for tax purposes than inventors in other countries? Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether some improvement cannot be made in this position?

Dr. Bray: Tax questions are, of course, a matter for the Chancellor and not for the Ministry of Technology, but some recent statements in the Press have not correctly represented the position. For example, the sale of shares in a company set up in 1959, on which Sir Christopher Cockerell wrote, would be hardly liable to tax, if at all.

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he intends to take to improve the financial rewards for British inventors.

Dr. Bray: The first necessity is to see that worthwhile inventions are fully and effectively exploited by industry, without which the possibility of reward cannot arise, and much of the work of the Ministry of Technology is directed to this end.
What reward the inventor will get is a matter for negotiation in the light of the prospects for the eventual success of his invention and costs involved. There are advisory services available to inventors, for instance that offered by the Institute of Patentees and Inventors to its members; but I am naturally willing to consider proposals to help to see that the inventor gains a fair reward.

Mr. Hordern: Would the hon. Gentleman and his Ministry consider this proposal, that the bar on development of many inventions—namely, the close company legislation—should be altered so that proper development of inventions can be proceeded with and not penalised as at present?

Dr. Bray: That suggestion affects many things other than inventions and is really a matter for the Chancellor.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman recall that until 1945 capital sums involved in patents were not subject to tax? Bearing in mind the considerable emphasis which his right hon. Friend himself seeks to give to innovation and improving the balance of payments, particularly on patents and licensing, is there not a strong case for him and his right hon. Friend to insist to the Chancellor that something be done?

Dr. Bray: Questions of taxation on all matters are best addressed to the Chancellor. Our concern in the Ministry is to ensure, as I said in my first reply, that the invention is applied, and effectively applied, and that inventors are given every encouragement by industry.

Mr. Rankin: Would these rewards cover supersonic research?

Dr. Bray: Any invention put to N.R.D.C. will be considered by it.

Mr. Hordern: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Metrication Board

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the names of those already appointed to the Metrication Board.

Mr. Benn: I have appointed Lord Ritchie-Calder to be Chairman, and Lord Bessborough to be Deputy Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the change-over to metrication is proceeding apace and that the burden of co-ordination is falling on the C.B.I. and the B.S.I.? Is this board now operative, since the longer the right hon. Gentleman spends setting it up the more confusion and complexities will arise?

Mr. Benn: I absolutely accept the need for speed. There is, of course, a conflict between the desirability of appointing the board early and the need for very wide consultations to be sure that it is really composed of the best possible people. I hope that the first meeting of


the board will be this month. As the hon. Gentleman said, metrication is proceeding apace, in any case.

Technico-Economic Studies

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology if he will list the technico-economic studies which he has authorised this year; what will be the cost of each; which organisations are carrying out these studies; and how many consultants from outside the country will be employed in each case and in total.

Dr. Bray: A list of technico-economic studies authorised in the current financial year is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Of the 24 studies costing £570,028 one study costing £17,000 is to be carried out by an organisation from outside this country. Its study team will include one member of British, and three of non-British, nationality.

TECHNICO-ECONOMIC STUDIES AUTHORISED BY THE MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY SINCE 1ST APRIL, 1968


Study
Cost
Organisation


Preliminary examination of economics of Hovercraft operations.
£2,725
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield.


Cost effectiveness of navigation systems for transport aircraft.
£7,738 (for 2nd year of 3-year study)
University of Lancaster.


Dissemination of R &amp; D Information from a Government Research Laboratory.
£500
University of Strathclyde.


Assistance in economic appraisal of research projects at National Engineering Laboratory.
£1,200
University of Stirling.


Marketing in relation to design in the machine tool industry.
£1,350
University of Strathclyde.


Potential field of application of ausformed tools.
£4,200
International Research and Development Co. Ltd.


Potential field of application of ausformed high-strength components.
£2,840
International Research and Development Co. Ltd.


Problem of removal of swarf from machine tools.
£9,500
Machine Tool Industry Research Association.


Establishment of Group Technology Centre to examine, co-ordinate and promote systems of Group Technology.
£300,000 (net)
U.K.A.E.A.


Drive characteristics of pulse motors for machine tools.
£15,000
University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology.


Requirements in electro-technology
£39,000
U.K.A.E.A.


Manufacture of dies and moulds
£17,000
Battelle Institute Ltd.


Ergonomic study of the basic controls and operation of powered industrial trucks.
£14,725
Birmingham University.


Cost of engineering maintenance and the scope for savings.
£30,000
P.A. Management Consultants Ltd.


Design study and market survey of applications of super-conducting motors and generators.
£15,000
International Research and Development Co. Ltd.


Market survey of power semi-conductor applications.
£15,000
International Research and Development Co. Ltd.


Ultra High Voltage test facility in the U.K.
£1,000
Electrical Research Association.


Survey of Electroheat Industry in the United Kingdom.
£25,000
Electrical Research Association - Sussex University.


Mathematical model for simulation studies of shipyard operations.
£29,500
British Ship Research Association-Business Operations Research Ltd.


Need for, and scope of, engineering capability exchanges.
£2,250
Associated Industrial Consultants Ltd.

Mr. Osborn: This reference is to the machine tool industry. I welcome the appointment of independent outside agents to do this, but where does the Machine Tool Industry Research Association come into this? Has the industry been consulted by the hon. Gentleman's Ministry in making the decision to do the survey of the machine tool industry?

Dr. Bray: No, the survey is on the manufacture of dies and moulds by the Battelle Institute, Ltd. In this matter, it is particularly valuable to tap European experience. This is an organisation of which we and many others in this country have had a good experience, and it is a wholly appropriate choice on which consultations have been carried out with a number of interested industrial users.

Following is the information:

Study
Cost
Organisation


Interfirm comparison for hand tool manufacturers.
£500
Centre for Interfirm Comparison Ltd.


Engineers' files, saw files and rasps industry in the United Kingdom.
No fee
Committee set up in agreement with File Trade Association.


Study of aircraft noise data
£6,000
British Aircraft Corporation Ltd.


Study of European V.T.O.L. sites
£30,000
Brian Colquhoun &amp; Partners.

Pametrada Turbine Research Station (Closure)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology what considerations led him to the final closing of the Pametrada turbine research station in 1967.

Mr. Benn: I did not close Pametrada. This body was an autonomous turbine design organisation controlled and supported by industry. By 1967 it was clear that there was no future for the organisation, and it consequently wound up voluntarily in 1968.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with paragraph 22 or Sir Arnold Lindley's report on the turbines in s.s. "Queen Elizabeth 2", in which he said that more should be done in development under running conditions? Is it not a pity that any place where testing can be done should not be kept in being?

Mr. Benn: The test rig which was inherited from Pametrada went to the Ship Research Association and not a great deal of use has been made of it. It does not meet a major test requirement for a turbine of the kind which the QE2 had at full power. This is being considered separately—I think that there is another Question on this matter—but I shall examine Sir Arnold Lindley's report in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says. If there is anything in this direction which seems right, I should not hesitate to do it.

Mr. Dalyell: To whom was it clear that there was no future?

Mr. Benn: To those who organised it. That is to say, it was not closed down by me; it was supported by industry, and industry had to decide what to do. I should add that from 1945 a grant was given by D.S.I.R., and it came to a conclusion, and the Geddes Committee recommended the reorganisation of the marine engine side. These things taken together no doubt contributed to the decision.

Industrial Monopolies (Management Skills)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure adequate management skills for the industrial monopolies which are being created in the industries for which he is sponsor.

Dr. Bray: In general, monopolies are not being created, but particular attention is paid to management when the Government consider possible mergers.
Industry and Government are now putting much increased resources into management training.

Sir C. Osborne: But since the hon. Gentleman's Department is forcing or encouraging amalgamations in certain sections of industry which amount to monopolies, will he ensure that, before these are forced on industry through his Department, adequate management exists, because great combinations do not necessarily give the adequate management which is so vital to our survival?

Dr. Bray: There is no question of people being forced into mergers, which are negotiated with the parties concerned. I repeat that the management quality of different companies is a major factor in assessing the merits of any proposal. I also appreciate very much that any merger results in the displacement of many managers who are, nowadays, having to find new jobs. Their personal position, of course, is also a factor needing consideration.

Mr. Palmer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that some very adequate managers with long experience and skill are being discarded with utter ruthlessness by some industrial interests and mergers? Is not this a scandal under a Labour Government?

Dr. Bray: I am sure that managers with a useful job to do in industry will be retained to the same extent as any other worker, although perhaps to no greater extent. We on this side could not


provide for management a different kind of security to that which we seek to supply to the ordinary worker.

Welding Research (Atomic Energy Authority)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Technology if he will issue a direction to the Atomic Energy Authority under Section 4 of the Science and Technology Act, to carry out research on improving the quality of welding.

Mr. Fowler: As part of its nuclear development programme the Atomic Energy Authority is making a substantial effort in this field. We are keeping under review the possibility of the issue of a requirement to the authority in respect of non-nuclear applications.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the work which has been done by the Reactor Fuel Laboratory at Springfield has been in connection with the nuclear programme and that substantial fall-out could exist in the general welding sphere, in which hundreds of millions of £s have been wasted annually through welding defects? Will he consider my suggestion carefully and issue a Section 4 direction and so enable this work to be dispersed throughout the welding industry?

Mr. Fowler: We will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion carefully. We are aware of what is being done at Springfield. We already support to the tune of £290,000 a year the work that is done at the Welding Institute.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: What efforts are being made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in this respect? Is the fullest possible advantage being taken of the research that has already been done by the research association?

Mr. Fowler: There is close co-operation between the authority and the Welding Institute, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he referred to the "research association". Both my Department and the authority have nominated representatives on the Research Board of the Welding Institute.

Royal Aircraft Establishment (Bedford)

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Minister of Technology what is the length of

the main runways at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: There is one main runway, 10,500 feet long.

Mr. Parkyn: Since my constituents are concerned at the prospect of a major airport appearing at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, can my hon. Friend say whether the longest runway runs north-south or east-west?

Mr. Mallalieu: It runs east-west.

Mr. Onslow: On what other matters of importance is the hon. Gentleman being consulted in connection with the decision about the siting of the third London Airport? What obstacles, other than financial, does he see concerning the transfer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about the length of a runway.

Marine Turbines (Research and Design)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to improve the quality of British research and design in the manufacture of advanced turbines in the light of the experience gained from the "Queen Elizabeth 2" passengership.

Mr. Fowler: Sir Arnold Lindley's Report published in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Monday, 3rd March—[Vol. 779, c. 42–5.]—indicates that the difficulties encountered with the turbines of the S.S. "Queen Elizabeth 2" were of a type known to designers of turbines. No action by my right hon. Friend to initiate further research is required, but he is considering Sir Arnold's recommendation that high power marine turbines should undergo a period of investigation under running conditions to ensure reliability in service.

Mr. Palmer: On the assumption made in paragraph 10 of the report, which indicates clearly that there were substantial faults in design, does not this matter merit some special attention for the future by his Department?

Mr. Fowler: As my right hon. Friend explained in an earlier Answer, every marine turbine is different. This is not


a similar pattern to that found in aircraft gas turbines. The "Q.E.2" turbines, for which the design schedule was designed by Pametrada, was of the same general type of design as a long series of successful turbines, although they are the largest built in that series. I do not believe that wide-ranging conclusions should be drawn from faults in these turbines.

Mr. Albu: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the trouble was that Pametrada was not a research and development organisation but a design and licensing organisation?

Mr. Fowler: There may be something in what my hon. Friend says.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Without minimising the value of Sir Arnold's report, would it not be prudent of Cunard and others concerned not to think that all the troubles are over in fixing sailing dates, and would it not be better to wait and have further sea trials first?

Mr. Fowler: I think Sir Arnold's report made perfectly clear, as everyone else has done, that no one can make a final judgment on whether these turbines will be successful in service until further sea trials. We shall not know for certain until they have been in service for a long time. We cannot say this about any turbine.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the firm which made these turbines yesterday announced some £6 million of export orders which, together with the Lindley report, should remove the unjustifiable cloud that has hung over the reputation of Clydeside engineering?

Mr. Fowler: I noticed the orders announced by John Brown Engineering for land gas turbines, which were from a different division of the firm. I was delighted to see that the reputation of the firm had apparently not suffered from this unhappy incident.

ROADS (SPEED LIMITS)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Since we published the Green Paper, "How Fast", last July, we have talked about speed limits to 40 organisations and corresponded with hundreds of individuals.
We are clear that speed limits, properly applied, can help safety. Our discussions have confirmed my own view that there is no novel departure, no single remedy, no new general limit which would radically improve safety.
We considered the possibility of introducing a new blanket limit of 60 m.p.h. on all single carriageway roads outside towns. But we have concluded that a measure of this kind would be too blunt an instrument.
Instead, we propose a package of measures to develop the existing system; to direct it more specifically to those roads and vehicles where speed limits will most contribute to safety, and to ensure that limits are set and kept at realistic levels.
Within this broad policy we propose the following measures:

(i) the use of more 50 m.p.h. limits and some experimental 60s on stretches of road with bad accident records;
(ii) the adoption of 40 m.p.h. limits in some villages on main roads, and
(iii) in towns, retention of 30 m.p.h. as the basic limit but with more use of 40s on main traffic routes.
We thought carefully whether the time has come to put the urban limit generally up to 35 m.p.h., but have decided against. Again, this would be too blunt. We cannot accept the risk that speeds on residential roads might rise significantly, and accidents with them. It is better to differentiate main traffic routes where higher limits will not increase risks.
The Greater London Council and Metropolitan Police asked for a 35 m.p.h. limit in London, but I think that the same arguments also apply. I am, however, suggesting to the G.L.C. an immediate joint review of London limits, on trunk and principal roads, to get the main traffic routes right. I very much hope that it will join me in this.
On vehicles, I propose to raise the non-motorway limit on light goods vehicles of 30 cwt. and below from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. Similarly, I propose to raise the limit on motorways and non-motorways for touring caravans from 40 to 50 m.p.h., with some conditions to prevent badly matched combinations of car and caravan. But, for the time being at least, I propose to reduce the motorway limit for heavy goods vehicles from 70 m.p.h. to 60 m.p.h.
The Government have already decided that this country should move towards a metric system. We propose, subject to further consultation, that speed limits should become metric in 1973. The lower end of the scale will then be 50, 65 and 80 k.p.h. and the experimental lengths of 60 m.p.h. limit will become 100 k.p.h. If we can get a much-needed improvement in driving behaviour, I should like to raise the present 70 m.p.h. limit slightly to 120 k.p.h.—about 75 m.p.h. This overall limit will apply as at present to all roads where no lower limit is in force.
Speed limits depend on enforcement. Police manpower is limited, but more realistic limits should themselves make enforcement easier. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will also be putting to the bodies concerned proposals for fixed penalties for speeding.
My Department, together with the Scottish and Welsh Offices, will shortly issue to local authorities new, more precise criteria for all levels of limits. We will ask them to keep those limits for which they are responsible under regular review, using these criteria, to ensure that they are reasonable and accepted as such by drivers.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: As a result of the reduction in the motorway speed limit for heavy lorries, what switch-back of heavy lorries will take place from motorways to non-motorways? What conclusions has the right hon. Gentleman drawn about the lesser number of accidents on motorways as a result of the reduction of the speed limit for heavy lorries? Will he tell the House whether the proposals for fixed penalties for speeding will remove all flexibility from the courts. How many categories of speeding does he propose to introduce?

Mr. Marsh: The present problem of enforcing the law in this field without freedom of police activity is neither desired by the police, nor by the motoring public. We could do this more efficiently if we could look at the possibility of a fixed penalty; and this can be argued when we consider the proposals. At present, we have no proposals, but we are looking for a more efficient way of saving time of police and motorists in dealing in this problem.

On the question of heavy goods vehicles, it is impossible to quantify exactly what saving in accidents there will be, but there is a great deal of evidence that such vehicles, travelling at 70 m.p.h., present a problem for the motorist who wants to pass them and who becomes frustrated; and there are safety problems. We shall be able to consider this before the new generation of vehicles comes on the road and we see how it will turn out, but all the evidence points to the need for a lower speed limit for heavy goods vehicles than for private cars.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have an important debate ahead.

Mr. Ogden: The package deal announced by my right hon. Friend includes many things, most of which will be welcome. As he has consulted so many organisations outside, will he give an assurance that there will be no firm decision until the House has been able to debate the matter? What consideration has he given to the fact that only 10 per cent. of passenger vehicles on the motorways are able to maintain and sustain a cruising speed of 70 m.p.h.?

Mr. Marsh: The question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
We have had exhaustive consultations. I do not know of many issues on which we have gone to the whole public for consultations. We have had interesting contributions from ordinary members of the public and we have consulted 40 organisations. We have not satisfied everyone, but there is a general consensus of opinion on this matter.
Of course, motorways always cause a great deal of controversy in terms of


speed limits, but recent experience has shown that there is still a large number of people who drive extremely dangerously on motorways—a minority, but, none the less, a number. The evidence at the moment is that 70 m.p.h. has a direct relation to the prevention of accidents. If, over a period of time, we could see that we could reduce the danger, we could move up the limit, but we should not place people at risk purely so that someone may drive at an extra 20 m.p.h.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On fixed penalties, has the right hon. Gentleman in mind that if a motorist pleads guilty and writes to the magistrate he will know the fine which will be imposed on him in any part of the country for a speeding offence, or, is the right hon. Gentleman's mind moving towards a sort of ticket system which is used in America, by which the fine is paid direct to the police?

Mr. Marsh: Exactly how the police will operate this will be a matter for the Home Secretary. I would prefer not to be drawn into details, because, as I have said, I shall discuss this principle with my right hon. Friends and return to the House with firm proposals. There are a number of ways of doing this, but I think most people agree that we are wasting a great deal of the time of police at present.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will welcome his statement, based as it is on considerations of safety? What steps does he propose to take to enforce the reduced speed limits for heavy goods vehicles on motorways? Is he aware that a small number of drivers appear to use the motorways as race tracks? Will the cost of switching speedometers from the present system to the metric system be borne by the Government?

Mr. Marsh: Without having given the hon. Gentleman's last point due consideration, and discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would only think it was unlikely.

On the question of the heavy goods vehicles, there is always a minority who behave badly. We consulted industry on this and it was generally content, not least because the ceiling on speeds has a

considerable economic value to hauliers. Enforcement is a matter for the police, and they will continue to do their best.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Instead of changing to kilometres per hour, will not my right hon. Friend give very serious consideration to accepting the now internationally-accepted S.I. units, which will mean changing to metres per second?

Mr. Marsh: All hon. Members will be well aware of the international S.I. units in metres per second, but I have a suspicion that there is probably a proportion of the 17 million motorists who are not as well-versed in this as the House is.

Mr. Kitson: When giving consideration to an increase in speed limits on motorways, will the right hon. Gentleman also consider imposing minimum speed limits on motorways, which would improve the accident rate?

Mr. Marsh: A great deal of thought has been given to this problem. The difficulty about it is twofold. One problem is the danger of forcing people to travel at a speed which is not the speed they would naturally choose. The other is the possibility of diverting some of this traffic from the motorways. The suggestion is reasonable—this is tried in many North American States—but on the whole we have come down against it, and I think that the general consensus was also against it.

Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend told us that there were exhaustive consultations. Among those whom he consulted, what organisation, if any, represented pedestrians, of whom we still have some millions?

Mr. Marsh: I am sure that they are somewhere in the list. There could not have been anyone that we left out, but I cannot immediately find a specific organisation. I can only say that the consultation with pedestrians was not least in the public debate. We had several hundreds of letters from members of the general public, including pedestrians, putting forward their views, which were all considered.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the Minister is not impressed by the arguments for minimum speed limits, will he think seriously about legal enforcement of a power-to-laden-weight ratio and gearing


of commercial vehicles, so that they can go up steep hills without dropping to such a slow pace that a queue of reasonably impatient traffic builds up behind them?

Mr. Marsh: Power-to-weight ratios open up a considerable topic, not least the sheer cost of the exercise and the power related to weight necessary to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The matter is being discussed with the industry, which has very strong views on it, but it is not taken into account in my statement.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend considered the prohibition of heavy goods vehicles on motorways from going into the fast lane, the lane on the right-hand side?

Mr. Marsh: They are not supposed to be there. The outside lane of the motorway is not intended to be a fast lane. It is intended to be a lane in which people can overtake others. The rules of the motorway apply to goods vehicles as much as to private vehicles.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. Mr. Peyton.

CHEDDAR CHEESE

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the use of the word Cheddar, as it relates to cheese, to cheese produced in the United Kingdom.
I would not suggest for a moment that my proposed modest Measure could be anything other than a helpful gesture to the dairy industry. It is not intended in any way as a solution to all its problems.
There is very widespread anxiety about what the consequences will be if we in this country continue to attempt to absorb indefinitely the surplus of other nations. The background of the problem is as follows. Production has been rising continuously in all dairy countries faster than consumption, and a good deal faster than in this country. Sales of liquid milk were down in 1968 for the first time in many years. There were cuts in welfare milk, and an increase in the retail price further damped down consumption.
There has also been a greater use of substitutes, and a really massive and flagrant dumping of cheese has led to an accumulation of stocks which can only be described as mountainous. There is a dual threat to the dairy industry which comes from the falling demand for liquid milk and the fact that the market for its products is being undermined by large-scale imports.
This situation led the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, to whom all hon. Members would wish to pay tribute for his services to the industry, to say recently that the changes we are now experiencing are more serious than any which the industry has faced this century.
Fears of an early collapse in the market for cheese left the Milk Marketing Board, in its opinion, with no alternative but to cut down home production, with very painful consequences, particularly for the farmhouse cheese-makers. Apart from the very serious loss of skilled men because expensive plant was rendered idle, they were obliged to turn away milk from farmers who had themselves expanded their herds to meet the demand.
The pattern of their farming was upset and distorted, and good, efficient producers found themselves in the mortifying situation of having to turn away or ration customers, not because they could not produce the goods but because they were not allowed to do so. I do not believe that there are many industrialists who would put up with such a situation, nor do I believe that there is any industry which can stand it for long.
While some British creameries have been able to enjoy the best of both worlds by going to Ireland and sending their products here, the plight of the British farmhouse cheese-maker can only be described as miserable.
It should be said, in case anyone should be tempted to misrepresent the position, that the dairy industry has neither stood still nor enjoyed an easy, painless progress. During a period of 10 years, about 40,000 people have left the industry, and during the same period the price to the producers has been increased by about 13½ per cent. This is to be compared with the rise of 27 per cent. in the retail price of milk, which should be further compared with a rise over the same period of 32 per cent. in the cost-of-living index.
It is not surprising, therefore, that farmers should feel something rather sharper than dismay at the spectacle of their markets being undermined by imports of subsidised produce at prices which bear little or no relation to those ruling in the countries of origin. It is widely felt to be ironic—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a number of general debates.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I shall endeavour not to detain the House much longer.
It is widely felt that it is ironic that we in this country should underpin by our policies the protectionist and high-price policies of other countries, particularly in the Common Market, by finding room for what they themselves cannot use. It is clear that, by absorbing these surpluses, we are enabling other countries to maintain domestic prices very much higher than those that rule here.
Clearly, action much more far-reaching than this modest Measure will

have to be taken, but it would be helpful if the word "Cheddar"—and for that matter, other names such as Cheshire and Caerphilly—were confined to cheeses produced in the United Kingdom. Who will be so bold, rash or unreasonable as to deny that such places as Cheddar, Caerphilly and Cheshire should at least enjoy the same measure of protection as is afforded by our own law to sherry and champagne?

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has made a forceful and attractive, even slightly persuasive, speech and, clearly, has invested a great deal of effort in the preparation of the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to oppose the Motion.
As we have heard, the object of the Bill concerns nomenclature. It seeks to restrict the use of the name "Cheddar" in the naming of cheeses. It proposes that only Cheddar cheese produced in the United Kingdom should be allowed to use the name. It is an interesting idea, but it just does not survive serious examination.
I do not believe there to be any real evidence that housewives are misled into buying imported Cheddar in the belief that it is made in England. Nor is there much evidence that English vodka is frequently mistaken for the Russian brand. Yet I understand that we now have a very good English vodka. Its name, I am told, is Vladiwar vodka, and it is said to be advertised as "Vladi-marvellous".
Hon. Members who take part in family shopping know that, often in supermarkets and other food stores, several varieties of Cheddar cheese are displayed and that they are clearly labelled with the country of origin. If, however, shoppers should still be misled, they have the protection of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, as well as of the more recent Trade Descriptions Act, 1968. Moreover, the use of the term "Cheddar" by overseas cheese manufacturers is anything but new. The term has been used by Australia since 1850, by the United States since 1851 and by Canada since 1867. So there are some Commonwealth countries which have manufactured the cheese for more than a century. New Zealand supplies


us with about one-third of our present requirements and would have genuine cause for complaint if she could not continue to use the name that she has used for her cheese for so long.
The Bill would not even bring about a logical use of the word "Cheddar". It would still allow cheeses to be sold as Cheddar if made, for example, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. But if cheeses can be described as Cheddar if made in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, where much of this cheese is, in fact, made, what possible logic can there be in forbidding an almost identical product from Australia, New Zealand, or Eire from being sold under the same name?
" Cheddar" has become an international word, and justifiably so. As a name for cheese it does not now belong to any one country. "Cheddar" has for over half a century been recognised internationally as the name of a type of cheese. There are even international standards for Cheddar cheese set by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. That may not commend itself to some hon. Members opposite. But it is a fact that the F.A.O. has set down international standards and, provided that the cheese is of the accepted Cheddar type—which the F.A.O. defines—it is legitimate for overseas countries to use the name.
We must accept that "Cheddar" is a type of cheese and that only a very small part of our requirements could economically be met in Somerset. After all, we do not insist that Channel Islands' or South Devon milk must come from Jersey, Guernsey or Devonshire, or that brussels sprouts must be imported from Belgium.
One effect that the Bill might have is to reduce imports of Cheddar cheese.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the need for such control, a Bill about nomenclature would be a clumsy and backhanded way to limit imports. Imports of cheese are already receiving urgent attention from the Government. Last August, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set on foot an attempt to reduce the sendings by overseas suppliers by voluntary means. In addition, the Board of Trade is making progress with a detailed examination of the industry's case for action against dumping and subsidisation of some imported cheeses.

The Bill would add little to these efforts. There is no evidence that the public is being misled. The international use of the term to describe a type of cheese is long-standing and is, in fact, a fine tribute to its originators in Somerset. This is a matter in which the hon. Gentleman can take legitimate pride and, of course, I admire his local patriotism. We could not expect an abrupt change like this to be acceptable, particularly to our Commonwealth friends, who, hon. Members know, I regard as being among the very best friends of this country. They would suffer seriously in consequence of the enactment of this Measure. The Bill is not needed. Nor is it either practical or logical. Thus, although I recognise that this will be "hard cheese "for the hon. Gentleman, I invite the House to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business).

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 178.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[3.59 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Costain, A. P.
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Crawshaw, Richard
Fortescue, Tim


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bence, Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bessell, Peter
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Donnelly, Desmond
Gurden, Harold




Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaka)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mawby, Ray
Royle, Anthony


Hamling, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Iremonger, T. L,
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S,
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langetone)
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Longden, Gilbert
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Lubbock, Eric
Prior, J. M. L.
Wright, Esmond


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Francis
Wylie, N. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Younger, Hn. George


Mackenzie, Alasdalr (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMaster, Stanley
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. John Peyton and


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Peter Mills.



Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John
MacColl, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Binns, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.


Bishop, E. S.
Gardner, Tony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Boyden, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric


Chapman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric,


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E.


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dobson, Ray
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Driberg, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Randall, Harry


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Ellis, John
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ennals, David
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Silverman, Julius







Skeffington Arthur
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Winnick, David


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woof, Robert


Taverne, Dick
Weitzman, David



Thomas, Rt. Hn, George
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Charles R. Morris and


Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. Alfred Morris.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question[4th March]:
That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1969, contained in Command Paper No. 3927.
Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word ' House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that Government policies are reducing the strength of the armed forces to a level inadequate to maintain the security of this country and its overseas interests'.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker to open the debate, may I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak, including a number who sat all through yesterday's debate and have some claim to be considered to be called. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I have the sad task of asking the House to turn its attention from cheese to the mere matter of the defence of the country. I should begin by explaining that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had hoped to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but is, I am sorry to say, indisposed. Therefore, we have had to make a rapid change of dispositions. I have been fortunate enough to catch your eye in my right hon. Friend's place, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) hopes later to catch your eye in winding up the debate for the Opposition before the Secretary of State delivers his second speech, in accordance with the tradition of these debates.
My right hon. and learned Friend yesterday, in a very wide-ranging speech, set out very clearly the reasons why, in our Amendment, we declare that the Government have reduced the

strength of the Armed Forces to a level inadequate to maintain the security of the country and its overseas interests. I will not go over the same ground again. I want to pick out four main points which seem to be of particular importance. The first is the situation in Europe, to which the Secretary of State referred at length yesterday, the second is the reserves and their totally inadequate state, the third is the very sorry story of recruiting, and the fourth is the abandonment of our obligations and interests east of Suez.
I believe that I should be right in saying these are the four matters upon which, most of all, we rest our case against the Government. The claim of the Secretary of State is that he has saved a great deal of money and strengthened the security of the country by concentrating in the way he has done on our defences in Europe. We on this side do not accept this. We do not accept the views he has expressed on Europe, to which I have referred; and, certainly, we totally reject the idea that Britain's true long-term interests are served by a total concentration on the European front to the neglect of our other manifold overseas interests.
Frankly, we are not entirely convinced either, by the Secretary of State's calculations about his economies, because we have noticed that apart from expenditure within the Defence Estimates there is a very large item for other military defence expenditure of which, I believe I am right in saying, the overwhelming item is purchases of American aircraft. To get a realistic figure this must be included. If we do include it, and quote the statistics given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself to the House a little while ago, we can see that the total expenditure on defence by the Government, as a percentage of the gross national product, so far from falling, has, during the last few years been going up. This is the answer to the Secretary of State's claim.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is well aware that all the progress payments on deliveries of American aircraft are included in the defence budget figures to which I have referred. The figures he is including are what we would have paid if we had not financed our purchases through credits. He knows perfectly well that these payments are included in estimates for later years when the necessary progress payments are made. In other words, he is referring to something which is not expenditure at all in the year concerned. He knows that as well as I do.

Mr. Maudling: Really, I did not think that even the Secretary of State would have thought of that. They purchase now and we pay in a few years' time. The true costs of defence are the figures given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the total cost of defence expenditure in the Estimates with other military defence expenditure outside the Estimates. If the Secretary of State runs his accounts on the basis that as you do not have to pay for two years you do not have to worry then I am not surprised that he gets in the muddle he does. We can only look at the total expenditure in relation to national resources in a given year.

Mr. Healey: It is not expenditure——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a debate by running commentary, even from the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Maudling: If one acquires aircraft "on tick" one is spending something. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman's Government will not have to meet the bill, but the country will.
I turn to the position in Europe, to which the Minister gave so much attention yesterday. We are by no means convinced that he has made a very great contribution to increasing security in Western Europe; and in particular, he has not answered questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), in a very powerful speech, about the degree to which any increase has been added to the total strength of N.A.T.O. by the measures announced by the Secretary of State. One squadron of Harriers. How much does that amount to? Further strengthening

on the flanks of N.A.T.O. How much in practical terms, in terms of peace and war and aggression, does that mean?
We are not yet convinced that the addition to the strength of N.A.T.O. for which the right hon. Gentleman takes credit is more than a fairly marginal amount, but I want to deal particularly with the main doctrine of European defence, as the Secretary of State did yesterday. He talked about graduated deterrents and a flexible response. I am doubtful about these phrases. Some of this jargon does not help us very much. Once, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was unwise enough to speak of Purchase Tax as a "flexible weapon" and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said that it sounded like a rubber hammer. We must not be bemused by these phrases.
The Secretary of State tried to prove that his approach to European defence was very different from ours. I just do not believe that at all. I believe that there is very little change. He is satisfied that the present level of N.A.T.O. forces is adequate for their purpose and, he said, adequate for anything short of a deliberate major attack. I am not sure what will be very important short of a deliberate major attack. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would explain what circumstances he had in mind and what circumstances would be a really important factor in our military planning. Surely, there is not all that difference between his talk of a flexible response and the phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in the past—"a trip wire".
Surely, there are three things which our defence in Europe must seek to do. First, pose to the Russians the real danger of a nuclear response—not, I agree, the certainty but the danger which should and surely would be enough deterrent against any aggressor. Secondly, we must be able to impose a temporary delay on any aggression to give the opportunity for discussion and negotiation and to avoid the immediate facing of the dilemma of nuclear destruction or total defeat. Thirdly, we must have the means of identifying and reacting to aggression, not a mere border incident.
This, surely, is the purpose of a trip wire just as much as it is the purpose of a flexible response. I do not think that


we should argue on unrealities. The Secretary of State should not claim that there has been any change of policy in something which has not changed at all.

Mr. Healey: In that case, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in opening the debate for the Opposition yesterday afternoon:
But I am sure that we must agree as a matter of strategy that it was right for N. A.T.O. to abandon the former trip-wire doctrine of immediate massive nuclear retaliation in favour of the concept of a flexible response based on a stronger conventional capability in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 252.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman try to sort this out with his right hon. and learned Friend, so that we have a common Opposition?

Mr. Maudling: Whether we call it a flexible response or a trip wire we need adequate forces to identify the nature of the aggression and to maintain a period in which diplomatic contact can take place so that we can avoid the awful choice between nuclear conflict and a complete defeat.
My right hon. and learned Friend will speak later and, no doubt, will conduct a further dialogue, but there is little difference between the two sides on this and it would be a pity to try to manufacture differences. There are some doubts, though. I hope that the Secretary of State can deal with some of these particular questions. He says that we in the West of Europe cannot hope to match the forces of the Warsaw Pact. He may be right on that, but there are questions on it.
Mr. McNamara who is, after all, very wise and well informed in these matters, took a very different point of view. I had the pleasure of seeing him in Washington last month, and he adheres to his view on the matter, presumably on the same evidence as is available to the Secretary of State. We should like to hear a little more about the Government's calculations, because they are very alarming calculations, showing a preponderance in tank and aircraft strength a good deal larger than was ever accepted by Mr. McNamara or others.
The other factor, of course, is surprise. Until fairly recently the Secretary of State has said that we should have some warning of aggression in Western Europe by the heightening of political tension. Does he still say that after Czechoslovakia, and after his emphasis on the speed and efficiency with which Russian forces were able to move into Czechoslovakia under cover of so-called "manœuvres"? If he does, he has failed to learn the lesson of recent history.
Why should it be impossible for the Western countries, which in manpower and in wealth should be able to match the Soviet Union, to match them in military defence as well? This is a hard question to answer. The answer, I think, lies in the figures given by the Minister about the proportion of their national wealth that the Soviet countries devote to armament. If we did the same we could match their forces. The simple point is not that we cannot match their forces, but that we are not prepared to do so. I do not think that it is politically acceptable to any country in Western Europe to embark on a programme of that kind.
We must, therefore, look at our European strategy against that background. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is not acceptable to Western European countries to develop a conventional potential on the total scale of the Russians. We must, therefore, have our trip wire or our flexible response, but it must be an adequate trip wire or adequate flexibility.
In that respect, I cannot help finding in the White Paper a remarkable contrast in the Government's emphasis on the way that defence expenditure is escalating on the other side of the Iron Curtain while defence expenditure here is going down. This seems to me to be very strange indeed. If that is so, our relative ability to impose a delay, a trip, a flexible period or a threshold on the Soviet forces must be diminishing.
It is difficult to see how the Government can accept that when in the past, on more than one occasion, both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have talked about taking risks of a virtually unacceptable character. It was


the Prime Minister who, in January, 1968, said:
We recognise … that these changes involve risks, but in the circumstances we believe they are risks that must be accepted.
There was the famous statement by the Secretary of State himself in November, 1967:
I frankly admit that there is an element of risk here, an element of risk which I would be reluctant to take in normal circumstances … I believe that the degree of risk is one which, in the current situation, is acceptable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 67.]
Since then, however, on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, the risk must have been growing, because if the right hon. Gentleman is right in his figures in the White Paper about the way that East European countries are spending their money and building up their strength while we cut ours down, relatively the risk must have been growing and the immediacy and nature of the risk has surely been emphasised very much indeed by the events in Czechoslovakia. Therefore, we on this side are right to pose seriously to the Government the question whether they are making adequate provision for the threshold which they see—I think, rightly—as a way of avoiding the awful choice between nuclear war and defeat by invasion.
This is, of course, a matter in which we are involved with our N.A.T.O. allies. It is right to say, as has been said and is probably accepted by the Secretary of State, that we should press upon our N.A.T.O. allies that they should make a bigger response to the common threat in many cases than they are doing at present. That I accept. It does not absolve us, however, from doing our share.
I find particular ground for concern in the total inadequacy of the reserves now available to this country. I do not see how the Secretary of State can hope to deploy and maintain the sort of strategy or flexibility of response which he has in mind without an adequate reserve organisation behind our Regular forces. Nor do I see how we can hope to have the flexibility of response across the whole globe, which we must have as a country, without adequate reserve forces behind our Regular forces.
I believe that the Secretary of State makes a fundamental error in being too

certain of the success of his own logic. He thinks out problems with great logic, I agree, and he assumes that the answer which he brings out is the only possible answer. The one lesson of history, however, particularly of the last 20 years, is that what matters in military terms is the uncertain and the unexpected. It is the preparation and the ability to meet the uncertain that matters. I do not see this flexibility in the Minister's proposals.
Therefore, I turn to the reserves as a matter that gives us great concern. There is no doubt that the contrast between us and other European countries is very great. The Times this morning said that the degree by which the reserves available to other countries in terms of their available manpower exceed the reserves of this country is, on average, a factor of up to 10 to 1.
I know that our system is different, and, traditionally, it always has been different. I would not argue that we need reserves on the same scale as the Continental countries, but I am not certain that by saying this we can push on one side, as the Government appear to do, the need for really effective and adequate reserves in this country.
Look at the position now. As I understand—the Minister will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong—the Government expect to have in the early 1970s Regular reserves of about 60,000 and a Territorial Army reserve of 80 per cent. of 56,000—say, 40,000 to 45,000. That, I understand, will be all. According to the best evidence that I can get, however, to bring the Regular Army up to establishment would need 60,000 reservists alone. So far as I can make out, to provide the logistic support which has been promised to the United Nations and to fulfil our commitment to B.A.O.R. would probably take all the reserves available, both Regular and volunteer. This would leave us denuded of home defence in this country.
There was a passage yesterday about a newspaper report. The Secretary of State spoke in his usual charming and forthright manner, as described in The Times of Monday with much accuracy, about that report. But we are concerned here that there is something of substance about home defence, the defence of


British and N.A.T.O. military installations in this country against possible and probable attack, particularly air and parachute attack. On present Government plans, we do not see how any provision of an adequate kind will be made for this home defence.
Again, on a previous occasion, the Government have talked about several thousand Regular sailors and soldiers still being left in the United Kingdom after Rhine Army has been reinforced, but will they be left as coherent units or merely as men left behind for one reason or another? What coherent, command-able, plannable units will be left in this country in those circumstances to deal with the very important tasks of home defence? This we must know. Unless we get an adequate answer on this, we must be forced to the conclusion that the Government have stretched our defence resources so far as to leave no adequate protection whatever, in case of war, for the home base which is essential.
The position, therefore, of the reserves is immensely important. It is linked, of course, with the shabby treatment meted out by the Government to the Territorial Army. This we have debated very many time and I do not want to rehearse it again. It is a very sorry story of men who have a great spirit of service and endeavour shabbily treated by their Government, a story of total failure to understand what is meant by the voluntary response to public service, a story of muddle which has left us with a very sorry situation.
I do not want to go into that again—it is well known to all of us—but I want to turn to recruiting, because there can be no doubt that, on present trends, even the Government's defence plans cannot be fulfilled. This is a very serious matter. I think that I am right in saying that the shortfall in recruiting has been something like one-quarter recently and was slightly over one-quarter between the last two years taken comparatively one with another. Unless something can effectively be done about this in the very near future, we shall be facing a very difficult situation.
The Secretary of State yesterday talked about demographic factors—a splendid phrase meaning, as I understand it, that there will be fewer men available at the

right time. It may be that he is right and that these are actuarial calculations, but if fewer people are available, the need to recruit them is all the greater, because the shortfall in people does not change the liability, the danger or the need. Therefore, the more that the Secretary of State emphasises that there are not so many people available, the more he should be concentrating on getting all that he requires from those who are available.
The reasons for the shortfall in recruiting are now fairly well known. There is, first, the constant uncertainty. We all talk to members of the forces in different parts of the country, and abroad, and constantly come up against this, that there have been so many chops and changes, so many White Papers, so many plans. Each time the Secretary of State says, "At last we have it right. We shall not change it any more", and when he says it again now I must tell him that nobody believes him. Why should they? It has happened so often.
We should not underestimate, too, the importance of the loss of opportunity for service overseas. This was enormously attractive to young men going into the Services, and the fact that it will not in future be available on the Government's policies is bound to be reflected in recruiting.
There is an impression in the forces and among those who might join that the Labour Party is opposed to the Armed Forces. There is a certain amount of evidence of that in the speeches and Amendments that come from below the gangway during the course of these debates.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves recruitment, will he clear up this point. Is he or is he not in favour of compulsory national service?

Mr. Maudling: Of course I am not. My point is that if the Government do not do something about it, they will themselves be faced with a nasty dilemma on precisely this point. In speaking of the Labour Party's opposition to the forces, I am merely reporting what people have said to me on more than one occasion. This is a factor, and it should not be ignored by the party opposite.
The biggest factor of all, undoubtedly, is pay, and I want to deal with this particularly.


I am certain that the Government are wrong to depart from the Grigg principle. This is a fundamental error. The pay of the Armed Forces is something quite special and quite separate. It cannot and must not be regarded as just another wage claim.
This is different for two reasons. First, because we must have the forces we need to protect our country as a first requirement, and, secondly, because the Armed Forces cannot bargain for themselves in the normal way, cannot threaten to go on strike, cannot go through the normal processes. Hence, I am sure that the principle of Grigg was right, that we guarantee to the Services that they would be kept in line with other people and, as the general level of incomes goes ahead, so, periodically, the level of income of the forces would be brought up in line with that.
As the House may be aware, I have strong views on the desirability of an incomes policy. I agree that comparability, if followed too seriously, can lead to considerable difficulties in the broad area of incomes policy, but this, the pay of the Armed Forces, is entirely different. It is different, first, for the reasons which I have just given about the need for the forces and the fact that they cannot go on strike and, secondly, because, by definition, the Services cannot set the pace, cannot be pace-setters in the incomes rise and cannot, therefore, take part in the process of leap-frogging, which is one of the great difficulties of the incomes policy.
The amount needed to bring the forces up in line with the general advance of incomes can fairly easily be calculated. Indeed, I would have hoped that a calculation of this kind would have been available as part of the background to the Defence Estimates, because it is relevant. The Economist estimated that by the time the National Board for Prices and Incomes reports the cost will be about a 10 per cent. increase and about £50 million. I would think that that is a broadly fair figure. What will the Government do when this happens?
If the N.B.P.I. makes an award of this character, will the Government accept it? If they do, they will have wasted a great deal of time and created suspicion by passing the matter over to the Board. If the Board recommends less than this,

less than comparability, will the Government accept its report? Will the Government then place a decision which is central to the security of this country in the hands of Mr. Aubrey Jones? There are many decisions and many matters which are rightly handled by Mr. Jones and his Board, but I do not believe that a matter which is vital to our security should be left to the judgment of the N.B.P.I.
The Government will have to pay the necessary rate to get the recruits, or they will have to have conscription, or they will fail to provide the country with the defences it requires. This is the situation that they face, and the House is entitled to know now how they intend to handle it. Nothing is more important to the future of our defence than this vital question of pay, which underlies all the prospects of recruiting to the Services.
I come now to the final subject with which I wish to deal, and that is our position east of Suez, where, as the Minister knows, there is a great division of opinion between the two sides of the House. We say that the Government, by their policy, have defaulted on Britain's obligations and have neglected Britain's interests. I believe that they are pursuing a course which may lead to a division between the United States and Western Europe which could have long-term fundamental consequences of a serious character. Nobody has been able to specify the number of treaties, but there can be no doubt that the Government, by their action east of Suez, broke Britain's word to many people whom we promised to protect and who are in no position to protect themselves. That is the situation which has been created.
The Secretary of State may say that, as a result of this, things are happening, that people are getting together. Naturally, when people are put into that situation they have to look round for ways to protect themselves, and we all welcome the developments which are taking place in, for instance, the Trucial States. Why not? Of course, people will protect themselves when they are able to do so, but when they have relied on the word of Britain for so many years they are entitled to expect that Britain will keep her word.
The important point is time. As we all know, to form a federation takes a


long time, and a hastily formed federation often leads to danger, for these smaller countries on the Gulf, the little countries; with large oil incomes, are totally incapable of defending themselves and certainly of defending themselves within a short time if British power, protection and interests are too rapidly withdrawn. I say once again to the Secretary of State that the plans for withdrawing from the Gulf are putting at risk British interests and British honour on a very great scale for a tiny reward.
Look at what the Russians are doing. They are moving round there, their naval units are appearing, their presence is being seen, and this fact appears in the White Paper. The Secretary of State says that the Russian naval units are there merely for their political results, not only in the Mediterranean but in the Indian Ocean. But if it is good for Russia politically to appear in the Gulf, why is it good for Britain to leave the Gulf?
Why is it different for us? We have friendships and interests there, so why is it good for us, who can maintain stability there and have done so for many years, to walk out, leaving a political vacuum Which will be filled either by the Russians or by the sort of discord and concatenation which bode no good for us or for our Western European allies?

Mr. Healey: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I respect his arguments; I have myself used them to some extent in the past. But if he is serious about the argument which he is now using, will he tell the House whether he plans to keep forces in the Gulf and the Far East on the scale on which we have them there now, with South Arabia and confrontation over? If so, we can form some judgment on the policy of the party opposite. If he is not prepared to answer that question, what he is saying now is simply humbug.

Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State is a very polite man. I shall be delighted to answer his question. I would have done so anyway, during my speech.
The forces in the Gulf are very small and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we could have come to an agreement with our allies there which involved their carrying a substantial part of the burden. In a place like the Gulf a small British

presence is vitally important. One man on the ground is worth 100 men over the horizon on the sea.
Our proposals on the Far East are that we should form with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia a joint Commonwealth presence there. Obviously, the British contribution will be basically naval and air components and technical assistance. We would not contemplate the presence of large-scale ground forces, because they would be better provided by Malaysia and Singapore. Our proposal is a co-operative effort of this character in South-East Asia.
Surely the Secretary of State has not failed to notice what the Australian Prime Minister has recently said on the Australian proposal for maintaining a naval air presence and a small military presence in South-East Asia.
These are our proposals, and we are certain that they will add to the stability of South-East Asia. We cannot ignore this part of the world, whatever anyone says. If Australia were attacked, we would go to her defence, and the same applies I believe to India, Pakistan, Malaysia and the other Commonwealth countries. Whatever the formal obligations, we would go. Therefore, we have a fundamental interest in maintaining the peace east of Suez, and we can better maintain that peace by being there than by leaving the place.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Quite rightly, constant stress is laid on the point that if we are to have a presence east of Suez it must be by means of a contribution to a joint force. But what about the Gulf? With whom does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should contribute to a joint force in the Gulf?

Mr. Maudling: With the Trucial States, the people there themselves. I hope that the Trucial Oman Scouts will become the defence force of the new Trucial Emirate.

Mr. Mayhew: But the right hon. Gentleman has just been saying that the Trucial States are without defences and quite incapable of any military effort.

Mr. Maudling: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to what I say. I have already


said that countries of this character cannot build up their defences in a couple of years. They are building up their defences. It is to be hoped that the Trucial Oman Scouts will become the defence force of the Union of Arab Emirates, but, without a British presence, they will not be enough. We propose that they should co-operate with us, just as in the Far East our Commonwealth partners will co-operate with us there.
Then we must consider the position of the United States. The Prime Minister coined a graphic phrase a little while ago when talking about America confronting China "eyeball to eyeball". That is one of his phrases which is worth recalling. If we leave America to bear the whole burden east of Suez, the Americans will feel a political exposure in that part of the world of a severe character. There will be a real danger that the Americans will say, "If you and Europe want to look after your own affairs and ignore the wider interests of all the people of South-East Asia and the oil resources in the Gulf on which you depend, carry on. We will leave you to defend your European interests, and we will look after the rest of the world."
I do not say that that will happen, but it is a real danger. I would have thought that the recent disarray in Europe would have brought home once again to the United States the difficulty of getting the sort of concord with the Soviet Union that they seek.
There is a real danger that the United States would be tempted to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union over the heads of Western Europe simply because they took the view that, as we were not helping them in the rest of the world, why should they worry about Western Europe. Nothing would do more harm to the cause of Western freedom than such a split.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the danger of the United States withdrawing either from Europe or elsewhere. But in 1950 and 1951, although America was ready to concentrate her capabilities in Europe, she joined with Australia and New Zealand in the Anzus Pact, accepting full responsibility for dealing with defence in that area, and

that Great Britain was excluded from that pact. Is he aware of that?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, and it adds strength to my point. If the American gaze is diverted away from the Atlantic by reason of Europe's concentration on European problems, the division could become a real and dangerous possibility.
Those, therefore, are my main arguments. To summarise them, we are not convinced that the European strategy of the party opposite has been thought out fully. In particular, we are worried about the lack of adequate reserves in this country both for home defence and for giving an adequate flexibility for the world-wide deployment of our forces. Recruiting is obviously going badly and will continue to go badly unless the Government take definite measures. If recruiting continues to falter, the whole plans of the Government will be brought into question. Finally, east of Suez, the Government have betrayed Britain's trust and ignored our interests. For this, we condemn them.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has been obliged to speak earlier today than originally intended, not because I did not want to hear him but because of the reasons which have forced him to speak now instead of winding up the debate for the Opposition. I hope that his right hon. Friend will soon recover from the bout of 'flu, or whatever it is which has laid him low.
I want to deal with one point straight away. I have spoken on it many times before, and I will not say a great deal about it today. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the shabby treatment of the Territorial Army by the Government. It is true that we have cut down considerably the number of soldiers in the TAVR as compared with the Territorial Army. However, if the right hon. Gentleman can spare a day later in the year and cares to come with me to visit a Territorial Army unit in camp, he will find that the way in which the Territorial Army units are treated now as compared with five years ago is far from shabby. If he sees for himself, I do not think that he will use that expression again.

Mr. Maudling: I was thinking of the time when they had to go to camp at their own expense.

Mr. Reynolds: The vast bulk of the Territorial Army never had to do that. The vast bulk of them have had more money and overseas camps during the past three years than at any time during the previous 13 years. It was a very small number of Territorials who decided last year to go to camp at their own expense. I repeat my offer to the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to come with me to Thetford or Dartmoor, during the coming camping season, I do not think that he will find anyone who thinks that he is being treated shabbily.
We shall be voting tonight on what is, in effect, a Motion of censure on the Government on what is, I suppose, about the most serious subject on which any Opposition can put down such a Motion. It accuses the Government of failing to provide for the defences of the country for which they are responsible.
In moving the Amendment, I found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member "or Hexham (Mr. Rippon) a little difficult in places to fit in with the Amendment. I am glad that he went out of his way to stress that there were some parts of the policy with which the Opposition were in agreement. However, he accused us of not providing adequately for the defence of the country. In part of his speech, he said that we are doing more in terms of N.A.T.O. defence than most of our European allies. He said that the R.A.F. represents a large part of the strike power of N.A.T.O., and that we provide the strongest of the European navies. Then he said that we alone amongst the European members of N.A.T.O. are involved in responsibilities for military action on every one of N.A.T.O.'s geographical fronts.
I agree with those statements completely. However, it is difficult to reconcile such statements with an Amendment which censures the Government for unduly running down our defences.
I was even more surprised when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham went on to say that, in his view, we have a right to argue that we are already over-committed to N.A.T.O. I thought at first that it was a slip of the tongue. I did not think

that it was the view of the Opposition that we were over-committed to N.A.T.O. and are providing too much for the defence of Europe. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the same word again a little later in his speech:
We are in a sense already over-committed to N.A.T.O."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 254.]
I think that this is something which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should clear up later.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's offer to deal with the point later. However, will he recognise that I was talking about our over-commitment in the sense of over-commitment to N.A.T.O. at the expense of our other interests, including home defence?

Mr. Reynolds: I was coming on to make that assumption. The fact remains, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that we should be using the troops which we have committed to N.A.T.O. for a worldwide rôle. Certainly, that was my assumption.
Her Majesty's Government do not accept that we are over-committed to N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. has been the linchpin of the defence of the United Kingdom for the last 20 years, and the N.A.T.O. nuclear deterrent in American hands, plus the N.A.T.O. conventional deterrent, including substantial United States ground forces, have maintained the peace in Central Europe since 1945.
In present circumstances, I see no alternative to a continuation of this policy with the two types of deterrent at both the conventional and nuclear level.
We all hope that the discussions, which are expected to start in the near future, between the United States and the U.S.S.R. on arms limitation will lead to a satisfactory conclusion and will ease tension not only in Europe but throughout the world. Such discussions, in which other members of N.A.T.O. and of the Warsaw Pact must play their proper part, are the only way to reduce this tension and lead eventually to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) referred to yesterday as multilateral disarmament under international control. That is the only long-term way that we can satisfactorily induce large reductions in arms without endangering the safety of this country.
Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham agreed that it was right for N.A.T.O. to abandon the tripwire doctrine and improve conventional capability. Some doubt has been cast on his authority to express that view on behalf of the Opposition by the right hon. Member for Barnet.

Mr. Rippon: Why does not the Minister quote col. 252, where I said:
It is no good making a great thing of having changed the strategy from the tripwire that trips to the flexible response that lasts for only a few days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 252.]
That is just an academic play upon words.

Mr. Reynolds: There is a big difference between a trip-wire that trips for a few hours and a conventional arrangement that can delay a decision to use nuclear weapons for days when we are talking about decisions of that kind.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said so, too.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was the right policy to go in for. If we are to start differentiating in a debate like this between a concept and a policy, I do not wish to enter into it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to argue that we were over-committed to N.A.T.O. and that it was a good thing to improve the conventional capability of N.A.T.O. But he argued that we should try to persuade other European members of N.A.T.O. to do that, so that we could reduce our commitments in Europe in order to play a world-wide rôle. This was the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to interject a moment or two ago.
We do not accept that particular doctrine. We do not automatically accept that we must maintain a world-wide rôle during the second half of the 20th century. Nor, when in power, does the Tory Party. During 13 years in office the Tories pursued a policy of reducing our world-wide commitments with considerable enthusiasm—and rightly so. They brought us out of the Continent of Africa.
The right hon. Member for Barnet spoke about leaving uncertainty in an area and allowing other people to move in. But it was a Conservative Government which brought us out of Africa. I am not criticising that decision. I am 100 per cent. in agreement. We get the impression that when the Conservatives are in office it is all right to reduce commitments overseas, but it is wrong when a Labour Government are in office.

Mr. John Lee: Before the Minister leaves Africa, will he deal with some other aspects of the matter which have not so far entered the debate? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that in certain circumstances, if law and order broke down in Rhodesia, we would use military force, though he confined it to those circumstances. Has the Minister taken note of the need to provide forces to enable us to fulfil that rôle?

Mr. Reynolds: I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has said about that on several occasions. I do not think that my hon. Friend really expected me to say anything. We have said that as from the early part of the 1970s anything that we have to do outside Europe will be met from the capability that we maintain for our operations in Europe and as part of N.A.T.O.
When we took office we had three main areas east of Suez: Aden, the Gulf and Singapore and Malaysia. But the Tories tend to forget——

Mr. David Lane: As the Minister is leaving Africa, may I ask him to say a word about Simonstown?

Mr. Reynolds: I did not leave Africa. I said that the Tories left Africa. Her Majesty's Government's ships do use the facilities of Simonstown when necessary. There is no secret about that.
We were in these three places east of Suez, but the Tory Government, before 1964, had promised independence to Aden and given the year in which it was to take place. We were right to go on after that to do the logical thing of withdrawing our troops at the time of independence.
I was interested to note that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham continued yesterday on the old line, which


is good for a debating point, of saying that members of the present Government, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, were talking two years or more ago about how essential it was to have a British military presence in South-East Asia and how quickly we have changed our minds. I am not disputing this. That was the case. But what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have forgotten is that it is only two and a half years since confrontation came to an end in Malaysia.
We could hardly, at a time when our troops were engaged in confrontation in Malaysia, give consideration to how much longer we would remain in that area. We were committed to stay there whilst confrontation went on. We could not back out in the middle of it. A few months after confrontation came to an end we announced our intention of withdrawing from that part of the world in 1975. That date was brought forward, primarily for economic reasons, to 1971.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: The Minister is talking about confrontation. Is not confrontation a perfect example of the kind of bloodless victory and contribution to peacekeeping which British forces have made and can make in future?

Mr. Reynolds: They have done that in many parts of the world in the past and there is no certainty that they will not have to do it in parts of the world in future. I accept that. But it is not necessary to keep large numbers of troops in Singapore sitting around waiting for it to happen out there again.
Our forces have successfully dealt with confrontation out there and we have the friendship of the countries we were helping to defend, for which they should be grateful. That was the time for us to come out of that area, having assisted them to stand on their own feet.
I recently visited Singapore for the handing over of the Royal Naval Dockyard to the Singapore Government, who are running it with Swan-Hunter in a commercial way. I was impressed by the way they were tackling the social and economic problems they have due to our military rundown and withdrawal from that part of the world. We applied what

I believe to be the sensible policy of handing over assets required by the Singapore and Malaysian Governments for economic or defence purposes free of charge. From what I could see, they were making good use of those assets. They were taking them over smoothly and quickly and bringing them into use for their own economic or military purposes. We will operate a similar policy with assets in the Gulf.
The right hon. Member for Barnet and others have spoken of the comparatively small cost of maintaining forces in the Gulf. The cost of the troops on the ground is small. But any realistic effect that troops in the Gulf might have on potential aggressors or trouble-makers in that part of the world would quickly be lost if it was not known that there were substantial forces and equipment in the United Kingdom and elsewhere which could be got there in the event of trouble. Maintaining that kind of capability costs tens of millions of pounds. It is not just the cost of troops on the ground at any moment.
I now turn to particular points raised yesterday which, to some extent, have been followed up by the right hon. Member for Barnet today.
First, our commitments to N.AT.O. Both yesterday and today doubts were cast on the information given to the House and to the public about our commitments and extra commitments to N.A.T.O. over the past year or so. I should point out that in September, 1964, despite various W.E.U. commitments and other treaties, we had in B.A.O.R. 49,525 men. We have brought back to this country, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) said yesterday, the 6th Brigade, which is one of the brigades in B.A.O.R. I think that the hon. Gentleman mentions 6,000 men. In fact, the number was 4,500, and they are stationed in the Catterick area. The total number in the B.A.O.R., including the men at Catterick, is 53,000. It follows from that that we have 48,500 men in Germany, 1,000 fewer than in 1964. It means, too, that as confrontation has come to an end, as we have come out of Aden, and as there is no trouble in any other part of the world, we are able to give a higher manning priority to the B.A.O.R. Despite the recruiting figures, we are confident that within the next 12


months we shall be able to post 1,000 more men to units in the B.A.O.R. In the coming year we shall have in the B.A.O.R. in Germany as many men as were there when we took over, plus a brigade of B.A.O.R. back in the Catterick area. This is a big improvement there, apart from anything else.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Surely that defeats the argument of the Secretary of State, that we have come out from east of Suez to make a vast increase in what we are contributing to the B.A.O.R. All that we have done is to get back to the 1964 figure. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the aircraft figures were to support these troops at tactical strength at 1964, and what they are today?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not think my right hon. Friend said that we were coming out of the Far East to build up the strength of the B.A.O.R. My right hon. Friend has argued that one reason for coming out of the Far East is to concentrate on the defence of Europe, which is the function of the B.A.O.R. I suggest that because of the commitments that we are gradually giving up in the Far East we shall be able to build up the strength of the B.A.O.R. units so that they are closer to their proper manning levels, and are much more effective as units than they were when they were several thousand men short in September, 1964. The aircraft are still there, and in the United Kingdom, as they have been in the past.
Perhaps I might now deal with other earmarked Forces. The 3rd Division, the majority of 16 Parachute Brigade, which has one infantry battalion, and 22 S.A.S. Regiment have been earmarked for SACEUR. This is a total of about 20,000 men. Previously the bulk of the 3rd Division was held available for activities outside the N.A.T.O. area.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North asked yesterday about amphibious forces, and mentioned four ships. He queried whether they carried 6,500 men. These are not all soldiers. One does not measure the strength of guided missile destroyers by the number of men who press the buttons. One takes the whole force. Thus, the four ships with their embarked commandos, their battalions, plus crews

and other men necessary to make them operational, carry a total of 6,500 men.
The hon. Gentleman also queried the amount of time it might take for them to become operational. Normally one of them would be somewhere in the Mediterranean area. It is possible that one of them could be in the Far East between now and 1971. That will take time to get round, but for years N.A.T.O. planning has been based on the assumption that one will get considerable political warning before there is any danger of military action in the N.A.T.O. area, so we are convinced that if necessary the ships could be got there in time. After 1971 all these ships will be in home waters or in the North Atlantic area for most of the time and they could be made available.
The 48,500 troops in Germany are there, not to defend Germany or the Germans, but to defend N.A.T.O.'s eastern flank, and in so doing they are providing a defence for the United Kingdom far more effectively than if they were stationed on Salisbury Plain. It has been suggested that we have assigned all our Forces to SACEUR for the defence of the Continent without any regard for the defence of this country, and that the Supreme Allied Commander is free to strip us of these Forces, leaving us defenceless.
I have a number of comments to make about that suggestion. First, there has been no change in the command arrangements since 1961. It was decided then that the Air Defence Force of the R.A.F. Fighter Command should be assigned to SACEUR, and that the United Kingdom should form one of the air defence regions of N.A.T.O. As this is part of the integrated N.A.T.O. air defence system of Europe, the Supreme Allied Commander not only has these forces at his disposal but is responsible for the United Kingdom air defence. The operational commander is the A.O.C. 11 Group under the Commander-in-Chief Strike Command.
Secondly, although it is true that we have earmarked a certain additional amount of troops for SACEUR use in war, these are forces which the previous Government maintained primarily for use outside the N.A.T.O. area, as so-called strategic reserves. The real point is that


in these days it makes no sense to regard the defence of this country as in any way separable from the defence of Europe as a whole. We have no doubt that we shall be protected in war by troops under SACEUR, just as will any other country in the N.A.T.O. area.
I must now deal with one other red herring, or perhaps I should say "red fleet", raised in a leading article in The Times this morning, which claimed that my right hon. Friend, because of his statement about how the Russian fleet could be dealt with in the event of hostilities had suggested a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russian ships in the Mediterranean. Nuclear weapons would not be used for this operation. In fact, they would not be required for this purpose, and I hope that we shall not get any more allegations of that kind in responsible newspapers.
I propose to deal next with what has been the dominant theme of the debate, and it was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, recruiting. I admit that our experience over the last 12 months has not been good. The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams-den) tried to say that the sole reason for the Defence Estimates being £5 million down or last year's figure was because of the shortfall in Army recruiting. That would have been a fair point if recruiting had always been up to the manpower targets. I am sure that right hon. Gentleman is aware that in 1963 and 1964 when he was responsible for the Army Estimates, either as Under-Secretary of State or as Minister of Defence, the manpower targets were 182,000 in each year, but the figures on which his Estimates were framed were 175,000 in 1963 and 171,000 in 1964. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's point would have been fair if it had always been done as he suggested, but the fact is that the Estimates have never been prepared on the basis of planning targets but on the basis of the men one hopes to get. Even if we were fortunate enough during the next 12 months to recruit all the 9,500 men that we are short of in the Army because of last year's recruiting, it would cost only £2½ million during the current year because they would come in over the year as a whole, and not all at once.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) said yesterday that I was not a scornful chap in private, but that I tended to be so when I was standing at this Dispatch Box. The fact is that it depends on the kind of speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to which I am replying. I admit that I would have been scornful about some of his speeches, but I assure him that I have no intention of being scornful about his speech yesterday, and he therefore need not look as worried as he appears to be.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about recruiting, and about Services pay, and I should like to deal with some of the points raised by him. Recruiting has not been good, and there are many reasons for this. No one can measure exactly the effect of each reason, but there are many of them. I think the most important is that there is now a large body of opinion, stretching across the major parties, which regards defence expenditure as wasteful and unnecessary. This is not the view of the Government, nor of the Opposition, nor of the vast majority of hon. Members, but it is the view of a great number of people in the community as a whole, and this has an effect on public attitudes. It has an effect on the attitude to our Forces, and this in turn has an effect on recruiting. How much effect I do not know, but it is something which does have an effect.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned uncertainty because of Defence Reviews. I admit that this is something else which has had an effect, though one cannot measure it, but in the last 12 months we have lost the best recruiting sergeant that one normally has, because British Forces have not been in action anywhere in the world. Not one Serviceman has been killed or wounded in action anywhere in the world in the last 12 months. This is the first time that this has been the case in this century. That is good, and I hope it goes on for many more years. The trouble is a nice little war going on somewhere is a good recruiting sergeant. The fact that there is not any trouble going on does not add to the glamour for people who want to be infantrymen or in the Forces.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was the logic of that that if we did have a little war somewhere it would increase recruiting? Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why


the recruiting situation is so bad in Scotland?

Mr. Reynolds: I do not think it is the fault of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I know he would probably like to claim credit for some of it, at any rate.
There has not been any military, fighting activity for the Forces over the last 12 months. This undoubtedly has a rather dampening effect so far as recruiting is concerned.
Loss of opportunities for service overseas has also been mentioned. I would accept that as something which is bound to have an effect on recruitment. On the other hand, the Armoured Corps regiments which serve in the United Kingdom and Germany—there are not many elsewhere—seem to be able to recruit satisfactorily. Perhaps it is the attraction of 50 tons of metal round a chap's neck. Whilst I believe the loss of opportunity for service overseas does have an effect, I do not think it is a measurable one. It will have an effect of making recruiting in some respects more difficult, but all major units in the United Kingdom do spend one month a year overseas on some major training exercise.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Is this not a rather false analogy. In a sense there is a technical element here. We always found any kind of technical recruiting went well whatever the situation was. The problem really arose for the infantry.

Mr. Reynolds: It is not quite so true now. I will give one or two reasons for that in a moment.
Pay has been mentioned, and I accept that as one of the factors.
Lastly, something which seemed to arouse a good deal of scorn from both the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Barnet is the demographic trends. I do not know why. They both of them cannot resist laughing when mentioning this aspect. It is the most important adverse aspect we have in the recruiting situation at the present moment. When we took over in 1964 the existing plans presupposed one would need some 44,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen, other rank recruits,

each year in order to maintain the then postulated future level of defence forces. Under the plans the Government have now announced, by 1973 we shall want 35,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen, other rank recruits, each year to maintain the then planned level of forces. In 1964–65 the recruiting figures came very close to the requirement, producing some 43,400 men in 1964–65.
We recruit the vast majority of the men we require for the three Services from the 15 to 20-year age group)—all those who have finished full-time education. When we were able to get 43,000 men in 1965 there were 1,470,000 males who finished full-time education between the ages of 15 and 20 years inclusive. By 1974 the number of males between the ages of 15 and 20 who finish full-time education will have dropped from nearly 1½million to rather under 1 million—a drop of almost one third in the total area from which we shall be able to recruit. That number has been going down ever since 1965. It will go down by almost a third over the next few years.
Thus, if we get the same percentage of those who are in the market for us to recruit from in 1974 as we got in 1965—and 1965 was quite a good year—we shall only be able to recruit on exactly the same percentage, 29,500 of the 35,000 which we know we shall want in 1974. One has to remember that youngsters will be leaving school one year later.
Shall we get the same percentage in 1974 as in 1965? I am rather doubtful. Children will be leaving school one year later by that time. The Royal Navy, in particular, relies to a very large extent on recruiting 15-year olds. Will it be able to get the same number of 16-year olds after another year at school? No one knows the answer.
We have the Industrial Training Act of 1962. That is now booming ahead and the various industries, through their training boards, are rapidly improving the training facilities and apprenticeship schemes available. This is already having an effect on apprentice entry into the services. We believe it will probably have a continuing, increasing effect on the entry into the Services of men wanting skilled training.
There is also a general expansion of opportunities for further education of all


kinds. It is likely that more and more people will be staying on for further education, thus reducing the number entering the forces.
Earlier marriages are taking place. Apron-strings are as good a tie as any to stop a man entering the forces. Marrying at 18 or 19 makes him less likely to join. There is increased competition from industry in what will be a smaller pool for everybody to fish in.
It will be very difficult to maintain the level of forces which the Government are planning for, let alone trying to get more men—which is what the Opposition Amendment says we ought to do.
I believe that we shall be able to meet the planned numbers, given the necessary incentives which we need. We will not be able to maintain total forces of over 400,000 men, which is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to want, without financial incentives of an economically impossible size, or some form of conscription. That is the point on manpower. The Amendment is accusing us of reducing the manpower. The hon. Gentleman opposite will not be able to get the men without one of those two alternatives and I do not think either of the two alternatives would be acceptable to the country as a whole.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said that he did not understand demographic matters; he should take advice on them very quickly. One has to consider the crippling effect of any defence measure providing for more men in 1974 than at the moment and having a handicapping effect on the numbers accounted for at the present time.
What are we doing? What can we do?

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: For this to make sense, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what target figures he has for the three Armed Forces in 1972?

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot exactly remember the number. I understand that it is 341,000 for all Services. Roughly speaking, for every 10,000 men in the forces, one requires 1,000 recruits coming in every year.
To combat the difficulties we are having at the moment—which will get more difficult as time goes on—first, we have to make sure there is job satisfaction as

far as the forces are concerned and, secondly, that the pay and conditions of service are right, so that we are competing in the field with some chance of success.
So far as job satisfaction is concerned, we have to make sure the man himself and the general public are convinced that the profession of arms is an honourable and vitally necessary one. Her Majesty's Government are firmly of that view. We try to do our best to convince as many other people in the country as possible. We are planning to spend £4 million on advertising during this coming year, an increase of 33 per cent. over the amount spent and provided for last year. About £250,000 of that will be spent on general advertising about the profession of arms rather than direct appeals for recruits of one kind or another. In addition, we are making £250,000 available between the three Services to be used to provide more open days and facilities for the public to see what their money is being spent on inside and in connection with military establishments and units.
It is a pity that due to the fact that the main part of the British Army with all the expensive equipment is in Germany. The ordinary taxpayer never gets an opportunity to see it. We want to try to give them the opportunity with this extra money, during the next 12 months, to see it himself—how the Services live, operate and train at present. Too many parents think the Army, Navy and Air Force have not changed from the time they were in it either during, immediately before, or after the last war. We must also ensure that the Serviceman knows that his period of service will be of use to him later when he leaves the Services and is in civilian life.
At this stage, I want to thank the Confederation of British Industry which, in co-operation with the Ministry, has allowed us to introduce a short service Army commission for three years with a guaranteed job in industry at the end of it. The number of applications we have received for this type of commission since that scheme was started in August of last year is over twice as many per advertisement as there were before the scheme was announced.
We must try to expand this type of arrangement so that the short-service man knows that what he has learned and done


in the Services will be of good use to him when he returns to civilian life. This means looking at our trade structures and things of that nature, as well.
We are also providing for better opportunities within the Services for education, for both officers and other ranks, and are making it possible for all permanent Regular officers, if they are able to do it and wish to do it, to obtain a degree while they are serving. We have the services and assistance in arranging this, which will be a slighly different arrangement in each of the three Services, of an Academic Advisory Council of the Royal Defence Academy.
Dr. F. A. Vick, Vice Chancellor, the Queen's University, Belfast, has agreed to act as Chairman. Other members who have agreed to serve are—Mr. Michael Howard, Fellow of All Soul's College, Oxford; Professor Norman Gibbs, Fellow of All Soul's College, Oxford; Mr. E. T. Williams, Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford; Dr. Brian Thwaites, Principal of Westfield College, University of London; Dr. T. A. F. Noble, Vice Chancellor, University of Leicester; Mr. B. G. Robbins, Chairman of the Royal Military College of Science Advisory Board; Mr. G. S. Bosworth, Director of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic; and Mr. Donald Lindsay, Headmaster of Malvern College.
These gentlemen will advise us on the way in which we can ensure that officers and Servicemen who wish to do so and who are able to do so can obtain a degree while they are serving. Nowadays many other ranks have the ability to obtain this level of qualification. We shall try to ensure that the opportunities are open to them as well.
There is another thing which we are doing at present. Regulations have been laid today providing for 3-year short-service engagements in infantry, Royal Artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps in the Army. There will also be a limited number of other vacancies in the Army for 3-year engagements. This will give an opportunity for people who want to try it out for a shorter period to do so. It will enable the Army to try to persuade these people while they are serving that it is worth their while to sign on for higher pay for a longer period. The

percentage which will be taken into any particular corps will be limited.
Before I finish I want to say a few words about pay. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, from the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester and from others, that it was wrong to abandon the Grigg pay scheme. I agree that the scheme served the forces very well for a considerable number of years—about 12 years or more. It meant that every two years officers' pay was adjusted to take account of percentage increases in the executive grades in the Civil Service and the pay of soldiers, sailors and airmen was increased by the same percentage as adult males in industry had obtained over the previous two years.
During the last four years the average increase in pay—I stress pay, not allowances—for the single soldier under the Grigg scheme has worked out at about 25 per cent., including an 18 per cent. increase two and a half years ago which, I remind the right hon. Member for Barnet, was the biggest increase ever and was given by a party which, he said, was perhaps not particularly interested in seeing that soldiers, sailors and airmen got a fair deal.
We must face the fact that just to carry on with percentage increases on a 12-year old base figure is not exactly the best way of continuing to decide what sort of relativity we should have between Service pay and pay outside the Services. It related to pay only, whereas, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware, pay as such forms only part of the total emoluments of the Serviceman, whether officer or other rank.
So, more than two years ago within the Ministry of Defence, we started looking in considerable detail at our pay structure and at the way in which pay scales are worked out. We need two basic things at least from a pay structure. We want to ensure that the rates of pay for the new recruit are sufficient to attract him in. We must also ensure that the rates of pay further up the scale are sufficient to offer a career to the right number of people in the right number of trades and ranks that we want to stay on for full pensionable service.
Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester quoted some rates of


pay. I shall not discuss them with him at present, because the trouble is that in considering pay, ration allowance, whether a man is married or single, whether he is in official quarters or out of them—all these things have to be taken into account before one can try to work out what a man's total emoluments are as compared with those of a person in a similar job outside. Even with a single man, it is a question of pay, his keep, and the provision of accommodation.
Looking at all this has led us to have a look at what has been called in the Press lately the military salary concept. After the various studies that we have had in the Ministry, we have concluded that there is only one way of ensuring that we can make it possible for the soldier, sailor or airman to compare what he is getting in total pay with what is being earned outside. This is to pay him a military salary which includes everything he is entitled to—the rate for the job. He must have, when comparing it with outside employment, a percentage added to compensate him for what in Service slang is referred to as a word which begins with "b "—I will not pronounce the full word, in view of the trouble which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) got himself into—which has homosexual connotations later and which finishes with the letters "ance".
This means the compulsory movement to which Servicemen are subject, the discipline they have to take up, and the fact that they are from time to time necessarily separated from their wives and families. So there must be an allowance on top of any proper comparison that we can make with pay outside the Services.
It is easy enough, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did, to compare the pay of a man flying a VC10 in Air Support Command with the pay of one flying a VC10 for B.O.A.C. There is not any comparison which can be made, however, for one who is flying a Lightning in the Royal Air Force. There is not a civil job similar. It is very difficult indeed to find fur comparisons, but we think that they can be worked out and if we can then go towards a military salary—we can work it out, we think, though

there will be a great number of difficulties—a soldier, sailor or airman will know exactly the monetary value which the nation places upon the task he is carrying out on behalf of the nation. He will then have to pay something for food and accommodation. The food charge will be fairly standard, but there are obvious difficulties over accommodation. We could not charge the same for a man in a submarine or in a ship as we charged someone who was quartered in a modern barracks, or at the extreme, someone who was in a slit trench.
There are many difficulties. We have done a great deal of work on it over the last few years and we are still working on it. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that Service pay was made the subject of a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The Board was asked to carry out its review by 30th May of this year.

Mr. Maudling: I recognise the importance of comparability plus, but will the responsibility for determining what the right rate is to get recruits rest with the the Minister or with the Board?

Mr. Reynolds: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a couple of minutes he will find that I will deal with that point fully.
We are expecting the report of the Board in the next three months. We asked for it within 12 months, and the 12 months will be up by 30th May of this year. During the period in which the Board has been studying this question it has devoted a great deal of time and labour to a searching study of the Services' pay structure and to the important and complicated task of examining the relativity between the work of Service officers and other ranks in various employments and that of civilians in comparable tasks. In the latter task the Board is making use of the services of industrial consultants.
Members of the Board have visited and are still visiting Service establishments in the United Kingdom and in Germany. The Board is paying special attention to the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the Services and to the relativity between their pay, job content and conditions and those of their civilian counterparts. In this task the Board has


received the co-operation of the B.M.A. and of the National Health Service.
In all aspects of its work the Board has been in close touch with the Ministry of Defence, from which it has received much evidence on current emoluments and current duties in the forces and with whom it has exchanged ideas for an improved pay structure for the future. I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the Board. I hope that a solution will emerge from the review. But the decision must be entirely for the Government. This was the point raised by the right hon. Member for Barnet. The Board can only advise the Government. I hope that, from this, we shall get a solution which is scrupulously fair to existing Servicemen and one which will enable us to ensure that people outside find a Service career attractive.
One good thing came out of yesterday's debate. Until yesterday, hon. Gentlemen opposite had always denied that there were figures in the Ministry of Defence in 1964 to show that they were planning to spend hundreds of millions of pounds more than has, in fact, been spent since then. Yesterday, they admitted that the figures were there. They tried to say, "Of course they were there, but we would have cut them down anyway, because they were the long-term costing figures and each year, in the Budget, we would have reduced them." But we have cut them down and every cut has been opposed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. What we still do not know, and what I should still like to know, is how many of those cuts they will go back on so as to provide the extra forces which they now say we should have. We still do not know that.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The Minister of Defence finished his hasty gallop with the subject of forces' pay. on which many of us would have liked to hear more. There is no fancy way around this problem. The idea of the military salary, imagining that, by merely anteing up the overall figure and then making deductions, will not impress anyone——

Mr. Reynolds: It depends on how much it is ante-ed up.

Mr. Goodhew: Yes, but also on how much it is knocked down again.
When one realises the trouble over the amount that trainee nurses have to pay for their accommodation and the ill-will which this breeds, one doubts whether it is the right answer for the Services. The real answer is that the Government must face the issue of supply and demand. If they are not getting the necessary recruits they must ante-up Service pay so as to out-bid industry and other employers. Conditions of service must be good, as well.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned job satisfaction, which is very important. One difficulty in the last few years over this continuing defence review, which we hope is now finished, is that there has not been the same satisfaction in the Services because of the uncertainty about whether it would be a long career. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the large number of young officers, captains, and so on who have been dithering during the last year over whether to get out while the going was good. I hope that they will now accept that there is a career for them in the Services, although I do not go all the way with the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the demographic situation.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be prepared for a situation in which he will not get the right number of recruits and seems to be giving reasons other than the real ones. He seems to have no answer to the problem, because he suggested there were two alternatives—uneconomic rates of pay or conscription, neither of which was acceptable, which seems to show that there was no alternative way of getting the necessary numbers——

Mr. Reynolds: I was saying that those two ways would be needed to get over 400,000, as hon. Gentlemen opposite want. I thought that, with reasonable incentives, we could get the numbers that we require.

Mr. Goodhew: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right, but by dismissing those two alternatives he is cutting down his options.
The right hon. Gentleman was not fair about the numbers in B.A.O.R. Governments use figures in different ways, but he suggested that the 48,500 in Germany at the moment, with, he hoped, another 1,000 in the next 12 months,


would amount to more than in 1964, but he did not say that, at that time, B.A.O.R. was depleted because large numbers of troops had been sent to Borneo for the confrontation. This must be faced by any Government. Once we concentrate on Europe, figures for one year can be made to prove that B.A.O.R. is being badly serviced, when troops have only been withdrawn to another theatre.
The right hon. Gentleman said also that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) was right to say that multilateral disarmament was the only safe way to disarm. That comes strangely from a Government who have been doing a heavy job of unilateral disarmament over the last four or five years. Indeed, the Secretary of State said yesterday:
N.A.T.O. must, however, accept that any reduction in its conventional capability will involve heavier dependence on the nuclear component of its deterrent strategy and thereby reduce the flexibility of N.A.T.O.'s reaction to the unforeseen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 242.]
This is true, as is the corollary—the more conventional troops we have in N.A.T.O., the greater the flexibility and the less likely we are to have to rely on a nuclear response. Yet the Government are still reducing the numbers of our forces.
In introducing his seventh Statement on Defence in four and a half years, the Secretary of State spoke yesterday with the same arrogance and complacency which we have come to expect of him. He is the only one to be taken in by his arguments and fools only himself. He should try reading his various White Papers, starting from when he came to office, and his speeches in the House introducing them, when he would understand why his policies are so completely discredited and why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was forced to say today, no one finds it possible to believe him when he says that a period of stability is now here.
Extraordinary though it may seem, the Secretary of State seems to have learnt nothing from the last four and a half years. The principal objective of his policy is still to fit our forces to a financial target which he decided years ago instead of deciding that, with certain

tasks to do, we must have the required forces and must, therefore, find the money to provide them. He is still obsessed with talk of economic realities, a phrase which appears again and again in his speeches and White Papers and he brags of spending a reducing percentage of the gross national product on our defences. Nowhere does he show signs of appreciating that the security of this country and its overseas interests is and must always be a first priority in Government expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman says in the White Paper that, if our security is not maintained, all our other national endeavours fall to the ground, which makes it most odd that he should reckon that he can, therefore, constantly try to work to a figure instead of regarding that as a first priority. As in all the right hon. Gentleman's other statements, we see the theme of reducing expenditure regardless of the consequences.
The White Paper refers to the continuing growth of Russian forces and the military power of the Warsaw Pact countries. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should be accentuating the increase in the size of their forces—the higher percentage of their G.N.P. being spent on defence compared with the N.A.T.O. Powers and the dangers that might arise from this increase in Russian military activity—and at the same time be recommending that we should continue to reduce our forces as if none of those things were happening.
In other words, the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, militarily, things are becoming worse from our point of view, yet he is not allowing that fact to colour his policies. His aim is still to run down our military strength and to meet the financial targets which he set himself when he first took office.
Having set in train the withdrawal east of Suez on purely economic grounds——

Mr. Reynolds: Mr. Reynoldsindicated dissent.

Mr. Goodhew: —for that is known to be the case, he now pretends that that move was part of a deliberate policy to concentrate our defence on Europe. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper tells us:
The essential feature of our current defence policy is a readiness to recognise that political and economic realities reinforce the defence arguments for concentrating Britain's military role on Europe.


The original arguments were not defence arguments but economic ones. We were staying east of Suez right up to the point when the right hon. Gentleman decided that he had to cut back at an earlier date.
We know what the political and economic realities are. I suppose that the political realities are that the Secretary of State has been under constant pressure from his hon. Friends below the Gangway to reduce the cost of defence. The economic realities are, of course, the failure of the Government to manage our affairs properly.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's pretence that this was all a part of a deliberate policy to concentrate on Europe was intended to further his right hon. Friend's ham-fisted attempts to enter the E.E.C. In that context we see the same sign of bodging the job all round. In an endeavour to justify this pretence, we are told in paragraph 5 of the White Paper:
In the past year, the advantages of concentrating our military effort West of Suez have been strongly underlined by the events in Czechoslovakia and the increase of Soviet naval activity in the Mediterranean.
I do not know what advantages appeared at the time of the rape of Czechoslovakia from the point of view of our being in Europe, with N.A.T.O. This, therefore, seems to be a specious argument.
This sudden realisation that Russia is still a threat to the free countries of the world is a complete volte face. In previous White Papers the right hon. Gentleman has constantly talked about the period of détente through which we were passing and about the need to assess the threat to us on the political intentions of the Communist world rather than on the actual military power that lay the other side of the Iron Curtain. Year after year that point was pressed in successive White Papers, completely in contrast to the advice which the Secretary of State was geting from General Lemnitzer, who has never stopped telling hon. Members that it is the military power which is the threat because political intentions can change overnight.
Then, in the 1968 White Paper, we had the proud announcement by the right hon. Gentleman that at last he had succeeded in persuading the other N.A.T.O. Governments that we could all relax and

withdraw some of our forces. His theory was that we would always have plenty of warning and that we could, therefore, lower our guard. Yet after the rape of Czechoslovakia the Secretary of State was the first to lecture our N.A.T.O. allies on the need to increase our forces in Europe—having spent all those years persuading them, because it fitted in with his economic policy, that we should reduce them.
The Secretary of State is not only continuing the run-down of our forces, but is persisting in the massive run-down of our stocks. It is disturbing to read in the White Paper that war reserve stocks are being sold off and run down. If this trend continues, it seems that we shall not only not have any reserves to reinforce B.A.O.R. once it has been brought up to a war footing—the figures show that we shall have thousands of ex-conscript reserves in this country who will then have finished their reserve liability and just be individuals not organised into units—but we shall not have any stocks of ammunition and equipment with which to keep our forces supplied in the event of a prolonged conventional conflict. Nor will we have any organised troops for home defence. This point has been worrying many people, despite the cavalier fashion with which the Secretary of State yesterday dismissed an important article by Chapman Pincher.
The Secretary of State's policies have so damaged confidence in the Services as a career that he cannot recruit those he needs to maintain our forces at the very reduced level he plans. My hon. Friends have constantly urged the Secretary of State to realise that if he continues with the constant changing and chopping of policies—with new White Papers announcing cut-backs in commitments and so on—eventually the run-down will get out of control and that, sooner or later it will begin to snowball on its own momentum because there will be no control by the Government in view of the lack of confidence. I hope that that point has not been reached, but it is worrying to find that the Government are having to fall back on an extension of the five-year reserve period in an effort to make up the numbers they need.
I have had enough of the right hon. Gentleman's White Papers, and people throughout the country are saying the same. The best thing that he can do


is to go and hand over the job to somebody who will have the confidence of the Services and the nation. We want the conviction that we have a Secretary of State who will see that the country and its interests are properly secured.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Shin well: The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) began by saying that he was not impressed by anything that the Government had said. I am bound to tell him, with the utmost respect, that I have not been in the least impressed by what he has had to say.
The Government are engaged on two fronts. They are being assailed by a barrage of artillery from hon. Gentlemen opposite, led by three formidable generals or admirals supported by some corporals and subordinate officers, with shots being fired by some snipers on these benches. I urge the Government to take little heed of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite and to concentrate on the remarks of my hon. Friends.
The Government can make up their minds quite definitely. Nothing they say, however logical the argument, however faultless the case they present, will convince the other side. They are not there to be convinced. We have had some cantakerous and rancorous criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He should not be in the least dismayed. There may be difference of opinion on this side of the House, but, after listening to the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, I am convinced that the Opposition have not yet made up their minds, clearly and logically on what the defence position of the United Kingdom should be.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where he thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and I had any disagreement?

Mr. Shin well: There was fundamental disagreement.

Mr. Rippon: None at all.

Mr. Shinwell: I was about to pay a compliment to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I was about to congratulate him on his

maiden speech as shadow Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that he remains the shadow Minister for a long time to come. I congratulate him not on the substance and content of his speech, but on his impeccable delivery. It was exceptional and clearly stated, but the content and substance was, of course, nebulous in character, as we might expect. Still, he is new to the game. I have no doubt he will improve in time, and I hope that he gets plenty of time to enable him to improve.
Instead of this type of debate, with bits and pieces about recruitment, about expenditure and the like, I would have preferred us to have had an academic debate on the strategy of defence and what it is all about, not talking about recruitment, whether it is progressive or reactionary and about expenditure, whether it is adequate or otherwise. The issue is, first, whether we need defence; is it necessary? If the reply is in the affirmative, what is the nature of that defence? That is the issue. We do not get down to these fundamental issues in our defence debates, largely because all sorts of extraneous issues—which are not entirely irrelevant but are extraneous to the main issue which confronts this nation and the whole of Europe in the context of defence.
I support the Secretary of State and his colleagues. There is not a great deal of difference, fundamentally, between the two Front Benches. Both sides want an adequate N.A.T.O. that can stand up to aggression, or, if it is not required to stand up physically to aggression, to frighten aggression off by the presentation of adequate forces. Both sides agree on that; there is no difference of opinion on it whatever. If there is, no doubt the right hon. and learned Member will tell us.
What is the trouble about? Is it recruitment? I do not accept the demographic concept, or the pill concept about recruitment. This is the only country associated with N.A.T.O. that has a Regular Army, Navy and Air Force. The rest are all conscripted. Having gone through a rather long period of National Service and then abandoned it, it is not surprising that we have difficulties over recruiting volunteers to the Regular forces. That is one of the troubles.
It has been suggested that the way in which it could be done would be to increase the pay for the Regular forces. I do not know if hon. Members are aware of what is the cost of the Regular forces, I reckon that with pay and allowances, married quarters and a variety of other ancillaries, the cost of the forces of the United Kingdom, however inadequate they are regarded for the purpose intended, amounts to nearly £1,000 million a year, almost 50 per cent. of the total cost of our defence.
If anyone wishes to challenge that, let him do so. It is proposed now that to provide adequate forces to stand up to possible aggression we should increase the cost above 50 per cent. of the total defence budget. That is a very serious matter. If the right hon. and learned Member and his party are of opinion that we can solve the problem of recruitment in that fashion, they are very much mistaken.
A question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) when the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was speaking. The right hon. Member was talking about the need for the more adequate reserves. I accept that view. My hon. Friend asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of his party, was in favour of compulsory service. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was a matter for the Government, who might be forced into that position unless voluntary recruitment was more adequate. That was running away from the problem. That, after all, is a fundamental issue in the context of recruitment and the kind of volunteer forces we require.
We can do two or three things, or a combination of all of them. We can pay vast sums in addition to the sums now being charged against the Government for defence in increasing the pay of members of the three Services in the hope of recruiting more. I doubt very much whether that would succeed, and I dismiss it. We could adopt selective service, which is objectionable. We could proceed to outright conscription. We have to face the problem, or we can say—as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham said yesterday, although an

attempt was made today to modify and correct what he said—that in the sphere of N.A.T.O. defence the United Kingdom is over-committed. What is the interpretation of that?
The only possible interpretation is that none of the other N.A.T.O. countries is playing its full part in the contribution that is essential to provide an adequate N.A.T.O. force. That is perfectly true. I have been saying that in almost every defence debate during the last 15 years and I was aware of it when I was Minister of Defence. Take the case of France. I recall that when we were faced with tension in Europe and trouble in Korea, French Ministers of Defence—I had to face several of them in my short period as Minister—presented, on paper, 15 divisions, 20 divisions, 25 divisions. Now they have contracted out so far as naval forces are concerned. They have contracted out entirely from N.A.T.O. apart from a promise to provide some forces in an emergency.
We are told that the Germans have 350,000 men. Have they? Are they up to strength? How many divisions have they? How many could act in an emergency? What is their equipment? What about Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg? What about Canada, with one brigade? What about the United States? We are always hearing about the hefty contributions made by the United States. What are the facts? There are no more than three actual divisions, two of which I believe are armoured. That is probably because of what is happening in Vietnam. However, let us face the facts. What do we require to stand up to the Russians?
In his Munich speech, in a number of articles he has written and possibly again yesterday, though I do not remember it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the enormous strength of the Soviet Union and the number of divisions available to her. I can recall giving the figures in the House on several occasions. The Russians have an overwhelming force in manpower, in tanks, in equipment of all kinds and in every possible category of hardware. To stand up to them, we require at least 30 divisions fully up to strength. Without such a force, what chance have we?
It may be said that the Soviet Union does not contemplate anything in the


nature of war, and that seems to be true. But we cannot ignore what happened in Czechoslovakia, any more than we can ignore the intransigence of the East Germans at present, and even a minor conflict in relation to Berlin.
The fact is that N.A.T.O.'s forces are totally inadequate for the purpose. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend or the Government. I am blaming the European countries associated with N.A.T.O. who have never played their full part, and it does not seem likely that they will.

Captain Walter Elliot: No matter how weak we are in Europe—though I have no doubt that we are as strong today as have been in the last decades—it would be odd if the Russians attacked us at our strongest point, which is in Western Europe. Are not their operations in such places as the Indian Ocean more dangerous than anything that they are likely to do in Western Europe?

Mr. Shinwell: If the Russians attack, they will not give us any warning, any more than they did Czechoslovakia. If we face the facts, we know that if the Russians intended to attack they would attack without warning and with overwhelming forces. I am not interested in any talk about trip-wires. There would be no warning.
It is impossible to face up to them. It is no use talking about deterring them by the threat of a secondary strike. The Russians would not trouble about nonsense of that kind. If they intended to strike with overwhelming conventional forces and feared that they would be unsuccessful, they would use nuclear weapons. Certainly, they would use tactical nuclear weapons.
In that situation, what course should we take? First, I want N.A.T.O. to remain, and I will give an illustration to support my contention. When I was Minister of Defence, we were faced with the Korean affair and high tension in Europe. I had to alert a brigade to send to Korea, and we had to send out naval forces. It is not easy to alert a brigade and to integrate various regiments or battalions. However, it was done. Because we were able to alert a brigade, after the United Nations had endorsed the United States action in Korea, we were able to do something which was much more important.
We were able to advise our Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, to meet President Truman and persuade him to order General MacArthur not to carry out his threat to bomb the installations in the Yalu river. That was an achievement. If we had not been able to bargain having made our contribution in Korea, it is doubtful whether President Truman would have received the Prime Minister, and General MacArthur would have had his own way. Indeed, the General made some difficulty about President Truman's decision, and eventually had to resign.
The same situation applies to Europe. If we have something which appears to be in the nature of a defence, however, inadequate, if there is a will to resist aggression, if the various countries associated with N.A.T.O. show a determination and resolution not to put up with what the Czechoslovakians have been compelled to contend with, that is a deterrent. In my opinion, it is the only possible one, because I place no reliance on what is called the nuclear deterrent.
There is something more. What is the cause of the trouble in Europe? It is related to foreign policy, by which I mean that, if the West German Federal Government, who are as anxious for peace as anyone, were ready to renounce any intention to have returned to them the territories ceded to Poland after the last war, that would remove one festering sore. Then, again, we are clear about this talk on the reunification of Germany. Her Majesty's Government are in favour of reunification. Indeed, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed it with President Nixon. If that could be got out of the way, and it was clearly understood that we have to recognise the East German Government, despite our repugnance for Communist philsophy, it would remove another of the festering sores of Europe which are the fundamental causes of the present state of affairs in Europe that gives rise to the need for European and United Kingdom defence.
I want to turn now to some of the expressions of opinion to which we have listened from this side of the House. I have not had an opportunity to give notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) that I would be referring to him. His speech yesterday was impressive; his speeches always are. He said that the


overwhelming nuclear power in the possession of the Soviet Union was capable of causing vast destruction and devastation, if used. I accept that. We all accept it. It has been said again and again, and my right hon. Friend was only repeating what he has said previously.
My right hon. Friend's prescription was multilateral disarmament, and I accept that, as we all do. However, in the present situation in Europe, in the Middle East, in Vietnam, in South-East Asia, in Rhodesia and in other parts of the world, does anyone detect evidence of a desire to proceed along the lines of multilateral disarmament? There is none. It is regrettable, but let us be realistic and face the facts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has devoted almost all his adult life to promoting disarmament. If ever there was a devotee of peace, it is he. But he talks about something of which there is no possibility of implementation in the foreseeable future.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) told us about the possibility of a ballistic missile coming to this country and of the devastating effect it would have—and I agree. But what was his prescription? It was to reduce United Kingdom defence expenditure by £200 million or £300 million. What irrelevance! What possible effect could that have in the circumstances? I dismiss the idea that, by reducing expenditure, one can even approach a solution to the problem.
The most logical Member on this side of the House is my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. He is against defence in its entirety. I do not agree with him, because a nation like ours must present some evidence of being ready to defend itself, and if we cannot have multilateral disarmament we must have the weapons and manpower to undertake that defence. But my hon. Friend is at least logical.
But some of my other hon. Friends—and I say this with great respect to them, for I understand their genuine convictions—believe that, by reducing defence expenditure, we should be solving the problem. We should be doing nothing of the sort. We should only be weakening our position. Far better to have no defences at all. But we have to have

defences if we are to stand up to the Russians, to face a potential aggressor. We must have adequate defences even if it means sacrifices. I support the Government on this issue.
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made one of his excellent speeches yesterday—a coherent analysis of the Government's capabilities in defence. Of course, he is faced with Treasury difficulties. Do not I know it! I had the experience myself at a time when there was more intransigence in the world than now and when we were actually engaged in conflict. He has to make the best of what he has, just as I had, and he is doing so. But I am sure that he is under no illusion that he has enough to stand up to the Russians. All we can do is to make them feel that we are ready to stand up to them and also hope that they are not ready to risk attacking the N.A.T.O. forces or any forces which have the disposition to reply to them.
I say to hon. Members around me that I accept N.A.T.O. I want an adequate N.A.T.O. I do not want too much expenditure, any more than my hon Friends do. But I am convinced that, without N.A.T.O., with nothing at all, we would be taken advantage of. No benefit would be conferred upon us. Nor do I believe that public opinion in this country would accept it. Of course we want to reduce expenditure, but not at a price which would mean eventual surrender.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I hope that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will take it as a compliment, for I mean it as such, when I say that the vigour and force with which he has delivered his speech makes nonsense of the Government's desire, expressed in the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, to limit the right of voting in at least part of Parliament to those age 72 or less, because I understand that he is already 12 years over that age, and, if his performance today is any indication, it looks as though he will be well capable of casting a vote in part of Parliament for many years to come.
But I fear that I must part company with the right hon. Gentleman when he approves of some of the recent speeches


of the Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, here he seems to be in a minority in the House, because not many hon. Member;; have expressed approval so far in the debate for the Defence Secretary's speeches.
I was ashamed of the Defence Secretary's pronouncement about that fact, if it is a fact, that the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean could be sunk in a matter of minutes. It seems to me that the correct posture for a Secretary of Defence of this or any other allied country is the one laid down by President Theodore Roosevelt, "Talk softly, but carry a big stick". But what we have seen is a whittling away of the stick we carry, while Ministerial pronouncements have begun to take on that rather shrill note that one has come to associate with the Defence Ministries of Baghdad or Damascus, but not, so far, with our own Ministry of Defence. So I was rather sorry to detect this bragging note creeping into the Secretary of State's pronouncements.
I take rather more seriously, however, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. I note that his views are shared by the right hon. Member for Easington. It may well be that the Secretary of State's remarks are right and that the conventional shield of N.A.T.O. is much too weak. There are others—Mr. McNamara and Mr. Enthoven—who are also in a position to know the facts, but who hold different views. But I wonder what the point is of reiterating them quite as clearly as the Secretary of State has done.
Let us consider the effect on morale of the N.A.T.O. forces themselves. Morale is an important factor in any conflict. Suppose that Admiral Nelson, before the Battle of Trafalgar, instead of hoisting the signal "England expects every man to do his duty", had hoisted, "England expects that all our ships will be sunk". That would have had a profound effect on the morale of the British seamen and the result of the battle might not have been as glorious as it was. The Secretary of State's remarks about the con ventional strength of N.A.T.O. can have done little to raise the morale of the British forces or, indeed, of any forces in N.A.T.O.
But I think rather more serious have been the Secretary of State's remarks

casting some doubt as to the wisdom of our present strategic doctrine. He is putting all our defence eggs into the European basket—that is the meaning of his statement. He is putting all our national defence eggs into a basket which he says himself is weak, is rotten, and will crack the moment any strain is put upon it.
While we all appreciate the importance of N.A.T.O. to this country, we wonder whether it is wise to concentrate all our power in this part of the world. I believe that the decision to withdraw from the Persian Gulf was a disaster. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), in yesterday's debate, questioned whether the presence of British forces in the Gulf had done any good in the past. The hon. Member has served in the Gulf, and his strategic views seemed to have been semi-baked by the sun that beats in that part of the world. During the past 25 years, despite the fact that in the Persian Gulf there is an extraordinarily explosive mixture of Arabs, oil and immense sums of money, there has been less bloodshed and disturbance than in any other part of the Arab world, from the borders of Persia to Morocco.
One of the reasons for the relative peace and quiet was that the presence of British forces made it relatively unnecessary for the local Arab States to build up their own defences. One of the major factors in the revolution and instability in that part of the world is the establishment of defensive forces. Our departure from the Gulf is already leading to the build-up of forces in the Trucial States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which, as has happened in Iraq, Syria and Aden, can be a factor of instability, as they fill the vacuum left by the British withdrawal.
Should we return to the Gulf? I do not know. A large part of the damage has probably already been done and is irreversible, but I believe that when we are returned to office we should undertake the responsibility of maintaining some forces there if necessary. The situation in the Far East is a very great deal clearer than in the Gulf. Following withdrawal, there was a danger that the Australians would withdraw into a "fortress Australia" posture, leaving South-East Asia to look after itself. We know from the speech of Mr. John Gorton, the Australian Prime Minister, on 25th February, that Australia


does not intend to withdraw to within her own frontiers. She intends to leave in South-East Asia, in conjunction with the Governments of Singapore, Malaya and New Zealand, 42 aircraft, a battalion of 1,200 men and a warship.
Some absurd figures have been given—£300 million from the Government Front Bench, £500 million from the Liberal bench yesterday—as to the cost of any return to the Far East under a Conservative Government. It would be sensible and desirable for us to be associated with the Australians, matching them man for man, aircraft for aircraft and ship for ship, but the figure of £500 million or £300 million is absolutely ludicrous. It would cost less than one-tenth of that amount. The real question is not what the cost would be if peace and quiet was made a permanent condition of that, alas, often unsettled part of the world, but what would happen if trouble did break out there.
Is there any way in which we could stop ourselves from being sucked into another confrontation, which absorbed the energies of 50,000 or more men a few years ago? Although our last experience with confrontation was a success, and most certainly saved our investments and trade in Malaysia and Singapore, we ought not to get sucked into another such situation. We have to ask: is there a reasonable cut-off point to our commitments? I think so. Just as I think it would be reasonable to say to the Australians that we will match them man for man in South-East Asia, so it would be reasonable to say that, come what may, we will not put in to South-East Asia more men than the Australians are prepared to deploy outside Australia.
We know that the Australians and New Zealanders cannot deploy more than, say. 10,000 men. There is an understandable and acceptable cut-off point to our commitment in that area. What is the depth of that commitment? My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) read out yesterday evening some of the Australian Prime Minister's words explaining why Australian forces were being committed on a permanent basis to that part of the world. Those words were almost exactly paraphrased a few years ago, when it was written:

In recent years, the threat to peace has been far greater outside Europe than within it. When such instability leads to open war, it may imperil not only economic interests in the area, but even world peace. In some parts of the world, the visible presence of British forces by itself is a deterrent to local conflict. No country with a sense of international responsibility would surrender this position without good reason unless it was satisfied that others could, and would, assume a similar role.
Those words come from the vaunted Defence Review of three years ago, published by the Government. They are correct. One of the problems at the moment is that it is intellectually impossible to support this Government's defence policy in all the courses it has taken in recent years. About four and a half or five years ago the policy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite was to do away with the so-called independent, so-called British, so-called nuclear deterrent. They were going through a phase of building-up the conventional forces. They then went through a phase in which the frontiers of this country were found on the Himalayas, which found its finest expression in the Defence Statement of February 1966, a statement with which, I must admit, I agreed in large measure. We moved from that to a wholly European policy and from a European policy to a European nuclear policy.
I wonder where they will go to next. I suspect that as this year's Defence Statement devotes only seven lines to home defence, next year's Defence Statement—if, unfortunately, the present Government are responsible for preparing one—will be devoted to the importance of home defence, with everything having to be devoted to that end. But there is one underlying thread that has gone through all these twists and turns and that is the word "reduction"—reduction in power, reduction in recruiting, reduction in credibility. Ministers themselves may be pleased wth this record, but I certainly am not.

6.32 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has referred, as was appropriate in a defence debate, to Nelson's famous signal at Trafalgar. I am not worried that it would have to be revised today as he suggested, but I am worried at the idea that it would be


written in that international language which, in N.A.T.O., now passes for English, so that, judging by what I have seen at N.A.T.O., we should have, instead of short, sharp words:
United Kingdom anticipates as regards the current emergency that personnel will face up to the issues involved and exercise the functions allotted to their respective occupation groups.
That would be deadly, terrible and not inspiring. This is one of the problems of internationalising our language.
Since many hon. Members wish to speak, I will concentrate on only one aspect of N.A.T.O. I come, first, to the big issue of the debate, the axis between Salford, Bast and Hexham, that we are over-committed to N.A.T.O. I do not believe so. I believe that we must preserve our commitments to N.A.T.O. and I shall concentrate on the one point of how we should strengthen N.A.T.O. I am worried not only by the gulf that can develop in an organisation like this between the military and the Governments, but also between the Governments and the Parliaments.
Except for Greece and Portugal we are all democracies and as Members of Parliament we have a duty to our constituents to see that they are defended and, also, that our resources are allocated according to priorities they understand. This is particularly important in dealing with collective defence. Since the invasion of Czechoslovakia, I have been worried, too, by the gulf that appears between Parliament and people, to which my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench referred. I find it staggering that since Czechoslovakia I have not had one letter from one constituent on the subject of defence. I find that amazing. One of our duties as Members of Parliament is to educate our constituents in the way they should judge defence and judge how we are spending money.
Like most other hon. Members, I believe that N.A.T.O. should be strong. I believe that particularly for two reasons, first, so that it is in balance with the Warsaw pact, so that fear is removed from both sides and there is created a climate in which there may be détente. Secondly, I believe that N.A.T.O. should be strong for the obvious, straightforward point, to deter any Russian invasion of the West.
I am convinced that there can be no détente unless there is this balance of strength between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact, thus removing fear. At the Council of Europe we have four neutral countries and over the last few years, in this balance, we were gradually moving towards an acceptance of having Eastern European Ministers coming to take part in our debates. I want to make clear that there was no question of admitting so-called "Parliamentarians" from these countries. These were Ministers and they are not necessarily "Parliamentarians". Until the invasion of Czechoslovakia there was this atmosphere and we were working towards that.
My second reason for wishing to maintain N.A.T.O's strength is, frankly, to deter; and since it is clear that in spite of Czechoslovakia our public, and some hon. Members too, are not so convinced I want the Government to do something to encourage public interest, such as big debates and discussion internationally by Members of Parliament of the N.A.T.O. Alliance and United States Senators and Congressmen. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say, when he replies tonight, that the Government will agree to make official the annual unofficial meeting of N.A.T.O. Members of Parliament. There are many good reasons for this and I will give a few of them.
One is that by making that meeting official these debates will be conducted with good preparatory documents. It is interesting to contrast the quality of the documentation at the official Assemblies of the Council of Europe and Western European Union with the rather pathetic documents which come from the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Conference because the latter are not official and have not the staff. I believe that this would lead to another point which seems important to me: that if these reports existed the journalists who follow these debates would be able to pass them over to the general public.
I have heard many debates in both places and have seen the reports in the Press afterwards. In each case the quality is far higher where there have been officially prepared reports on which Members of Parliament debate. Journalists have been frank in telling me that the reason is that since they come fairly


new to the particular topic they have a report on which to base their work.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the political purpose of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean. The political build-up of N.A.T.O. is not discussed often enough by M.P.s of the alliance and is not sufficiently understood. If this had been so it would not have been possible to argue in this House that we should reduce our defence contribution because our allies have reduced theirs. I would certainly argue that we should reduce our contribution if the other side had reduced theirs, because this is the basis of preserving a balance. This is exactly what the North Atlantic Council offered to do last year. What was the answer? The invasion of Czechoslovakia.
My last particular point on why I believe it would be good to make this Assembly official is that these well-prepared debates, with American and Canadian Senators and Congressmen talking with Europeans would enable us gradually to get across, as a group, the fact that while East and West is an important confrontation U Thant himself pointed out that in future the battle may be between the poor and the wealthy countries.
This is a subject we would consider. It is particularly important that our American allies should be present, because it is a fact that the richest country in the world ranks only eighth in the proportion of its gross national product which it provides for development aid. I hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) would be present to understand that I am much concerned about that, too.
The N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Conference as long ago as 1966 passed a resolution which was sent to Ministers asking for its annual assembly to be made official so that it would be a better place in which to debate the problems of N.A.T.O. and involve to a much greater extent Members of Parliament and Congressmen. I ask my right hon. Friend to say that the Government will get this Report—because they have it—out of the pigeonhole and implement it.
We all agree that in a democracy we need parliamentary criticism. Cannot we also accept that in an international

alliance for the defence of democracy we need the criticism of an international, not Parliament, but an international Parliamentary assembly? It is generally agreed that war is too important to be left to the generals. I argue that international defence is too important and too expensive to be left to the Ministers.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I am glad to follow in debate the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), partly because I agree with nearly everything that he said and partly because he has made a considerable contribution to European understanding.
I cannot speak with any knowledge of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians Conference because I have never been there, but I see a slight danger in an undue multiplication of the various international bodies which discuss these questions. The more they can be concentrated, the better. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that we must preserve our commitments to N.A.T.O. and that, because some of the others did not seem to be entirely pulling their weight, that was no reason for us not to do so. I could not agree more.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin well) said that this was an occasion to speak about major defence strategy. That is what I propose to do. Ever since I started to attend our defence debates, which is a long time ago, they seem to have been preoccupied with two subjects—money and manpower. There is plenty to worry about in both at present. I am alarmed at the recruiting figures. I do not believe that one can bribe people into the forces or that higher pay is the answer. Those who think so should read the accounts of the journalist who interviewed Soviet troops in Prague after the occupation. They would then realise for how little the troops were willing to serve and with how little leave. But, as the right hon. Member for Easington said, pay has become a very large percentage of the whole of the defence budget at the very time that weapons are becoming so expensive.
That brings me back to money. This is bound to be a worry at any time, but particularly at a time like the present, when we have balance of payments difficulties. We know of the struggles which go on between the Defence Departments


and the Treasury. Only a year ago the Secretary of State was telling us of four different reviews within two years. That is a bit more than average. But those of us with experience of the Defence Department know how often they occur and how unsettling they are.
Nevertheless, I was very surprised to read in the White Paper that we had come to "a period of stability and progress". I cannot see that either in terms of manpower or in terms of money, nor can I see it from the outside point of view. However, I should like to talk for a few moments about the external threat against which we are trying to defend ourselves. I shall try to do so in a non-political way.
The time has come to reassess the external threat. N.A.T.O. has been going for 19 years, and it is very easy to forget how much conditions have changed in that time, some for the better, some for the worse. We can draw up a kind of profit and loss account in this respect. There are improvements in the outlook. Because of the availability of more troops, it has been possible to move the N.A.T.O. line very much closer to the Iron Curtain.
The great disruption of the French withdrawal from N.A.T.O., but not the alliance, has been amazingly overcome, as anyone who has visited S.H.A.P.E. at Casteau or A.F.C.E.N.T. headquarters in Limburg, would agree. They have overcome those difficulties, and there is a lot to be proud about. Although the French withdrawal has been very disturbing in many ways, it has meant that A.F.C.E.N.T. is operating virtually in one language instead of two. Anyone with experience of combined headquarters will agree that a common language is of tremendous use. There will be a problem there if and when, as I hope, the French return.
Secondly, there is an improvement in the N.A.T.O. position because of the anxieties of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has anxieties because of the threat of the break-up of its satellite empire in Eastern Europe. This is a favourite theme of the Secretary of State. He points out, quite rightly, that dangers can arise at moments of break-up. But it must be an advantage that the Soviet Union felt so strongly that it had to hold

on to Czechoslovakia that it was willing to take very brutal action there.
The Soviet Union has another cause for anxiety in China. This anxiety has been reinforced in the last few days. In the summer we read that half a million extra Chinese troops had been concentrated on the frontier. We read in the newspapers yesterday about great demonstrations by the Chinese against the Russians. This must affect the mentality of the Soviet Union and reduce any tendency it might have to threaten us, although that may not be immediately apparent, in Berlin.
But that is not the whole picture. When we analyse the position, we see a deterioration of the position of N.A.T.O. in six ways. First, nuclear parity has come very much nearer. If we look back to the Institute of Strategic Studies' assessment in 1962, we can see what a preponderance of medium and long-range bombers and in other ways we had in those days compared with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the tide has been flowing against us in that respect.
A second very important point is that the United States is within full nuclear range. Anyone who expects me to believe that that will not influence American decisions must think again. He will never convince me that the United States will not be more reluctant to use the nuclear deterrent, about which the Secretary of State talks so much, and that it will want longer to negotiate before having to take that terrible decision. This has an influence on the need for conventional forces.
Thirdly, I believe that the Warsaw Pact forces are very much more powerful than they were. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at the speed and efficiency with which they moved into Czechoslovakia under an extremely unified Russian command such as we cannot possibly enjoy under N.A.T.O.
Those three points add up to the fact that the deterrent has become less credible. Suicide is never a very convincing argument. Also, longer is needed for negotiation before the appalling choice of surrender or suicide is made.
There are further points where the position of N.A.T.O. has, unfortunately, deteriorated. The first is the weakening


of the N.A.T.O. southern flank. Nineteen years ago N.A.T.O. was virtually in control of the Northern coast of Africa. Today, Egypt is full of Soviet arms and under great Soviet influence, which has now extended to Algeria. We do not know whether or not a base will be set up now that the French have got out of Mers el Kebir, but the whole of the North African coast is quite a different proposition from what it used to be.
I do not know whether or not we could destroy the Soviet Mediterranean fleet in two minutes—I still do not understand why that is the correct period of time—but it must be reducing the efficiency of the American Sixth Fleet by its constant shadowing.
Fifthly, we come gack to France. This is a new disadvantage for N.A.T.O. because General Lemnitzer is not in a position to know in what circumstances the French would or would not be with them. General Lemnitzer has to do double planning, and planning for various contingencies is difficult enough in a loose alliance of 14 countries without the additional difficulty of having to make plans which both include the French and exclude them.
Sixthly, the events in Czechoslovakia have led to a deterioration of the position of N.A.T.O. and introduced a new element of doubt in that this was something that no one though would happen. N.A.T.O. has consequently been presented with new problems, the most serious of which is "uncertainty", which has been mentioned more than once by the Foreign Secretary. There is uncertainty about what we ought to be prepared to defend ourselves against. We must take what steps we can to bring back the credibility of the deterrent.
The use of the nuclear deterrent is purely a matter for American decision, and it is not easy for us to see how or in what circumstances that decision would be made. It is an element on the good side that the Polaris submarine introduces a European element in the deterrent for the first time.
Our conventional troops are not equal to, and are nowhere near——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the element of "fear"? Is it here or in Russia?

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I

do not remember saying anything about an element of fear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What does the hon. Gentleman mean, then?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I believe that we must have conventional forces as part of the element of deterrence. With such conventional inequality the deterrent is no longer as convincing as it was.
It has been said that Europe is strong enough in terms of industrial potential and manpower to defend itself. Indeed, hon. Members opposite were asking why the people of the Persian Gulf could not defend themselves. Americans must sometimes ask themselves that question about Europe. We have the manpower and the industrial potential, but we are not prepared to spend enough to secure this defence. However, that is no excuse for not spending what we can. In future, the countries of Europe must be prepared to come closer together and to play a larger part in its defence. Although the Americans are completely committed in Europe at present, we have no right to expect that that will go on for ever.
The number of our troops in B.A.O.R. has been mentioned several times, and it is a little less than in 1964. This brings me to the question of a British general commanding the Northern Army Group. I do not see how we could possibly hang on to that command with a smaller number than we have now.
In this new position of insecurity various types of attack are possible. There is the possibility of a major attack, in the event of which, the Secretary of State told us, it could be only a few days before surrender or suicide. Surely a longer time than a few days is needed for negotiation.
There is the possibility of a limited incursion, and here there is the difficulty of whether or not the French would be willing to co-operate. A Soviet penetration would almost certainly happen, and this would bring Soviet forces into highly populated N.A.T.O. territory. It could hardly be otherwise, and that would lead to great difficulties in negotiating about the incident in the second stage.
There is the possibility of Soviet attack within their satellite system. Mr. Brezhnev has declared that in certain


circumstances he is justified in going anywhere within the Socialist camp, and this new policy is a cause for anxiety. There is Yugoslavia to be worried about, and Rumania, and we read with some anxiety that General Jakubovsky has gone there to organise manœuvres. One thing is quite certain, and that is the manœuvres in Czechoslovakia carried out a reconnaissance and paved the way for the actual invasion.
There are other territories, usually referred to as the grey areas, which fall neither within the Warsaw Pact bloc nor with the N.A.T.O. pact. We must agree that attack there is much more likely, and it is also much harder to see what could be done about it. I suppose that Yugoslavia comes into this category, so does Austria, and there would be some alarming strategic implications if an incursion into Austria were to cross the Danube. Shortly after the Czechoslovak incident the Russians were claiming a right of intervention in certain circumstances in West Germany, and that doctrine could easily be extended to Austria.
The new defence treaty between Albania and the Chinese conjures up interesting thoughts of possible confrontation between China and Russia in Europe. It would be extremely hard for N.A.T.O. to render assistance in any of these territories because they are so far away and, in many cases, the guns fire Russian ammunition.
In conclusion, I am disappointed with the failure of the White Paper to measure up to what I conceive to be the new threat to us. I notice, for example, that research has been cut by no less than £30 million. Some account must be taken of this rather complacent White Paper and of what I regard as the deterioration of the position in N.A.T.O. I must agree that the Government have gone some way with our European allies to try and draw the European nations within N.A.T.O. closer together. However, it is up to this country to take more of a lead than it has done in strengthening the position.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has referred to the events in Czechoslovakia, and, to a large extent, the situation there has been one

of the focal points in this debate. However, in my opinion, hon. Members have drawn the wrong conclusions about Czechoslovakia. I do not know any body of opinion in this country which has favoured the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Indeed, one of the strongest critics of the Soviet Government at the time was the British Communist Party.
I have yet to hear any hon. Member say in the debate what he would have done if he had been in the position of Mr. Dubcek. Would hon. Members have fought? Would they have made the customary call to join the colours and fight to the last man and the last drop of blood? Of course they would not.
The Czechs recognised that military force was no answer to the Russian invasion. They had quite a formidable military force. They had an air force and a considerable army. However, the President of Czechoslovakia and his Cabinet decided that it was quite impossible to save the country with military forces and that, if they had tried, the country would have been destroyed in the fighting which would have followed and, with the country, the beautiful city of Prague.
Instead, it was decided to send the; army back into barracks, not to use the air force, and to adopt a policy of passive resistance. What else could they do? They were faced with overwhelming forces. They decided that not to fight in the conventional military sense was the wisest policy, and I applaud them.
There is a parallel between Czechoslovakia and this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Czechoslovak Government took the view that they had nothing to gain by military resistance because their country would be destroyed. We are in the same position, when we consider the possibility of nuclear war. If we went into a nuclear war, we would be destroyed.
The lesson of Czechoslovakia is that passive resistance is more in the interests of the people of the country than all this paraphernalia of armies, navies and tanks, to say nothing of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: To take my hon. Friend's argument to its logical conclusion, does not


he think that he should advise the Russians to give up all their tanks, and so on, and let us have a bit of passive resistance on that side, too?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my hon. Friend had studied some of my books, he would know that in one of them I relate how the Russians repudiated me because of my pacifist views. It appears that I am criticised by the Warsaw Pact countries and by the N.A.T.O. countries. I occupy the position of the person who says that military resistance and war are completely obsolete in the modern age, and that it is foolishness and futility to adopt these methods and think in those terms. That is why I apply that argument to this country today.
What is the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? He says that we are faced with overwhelming military force in Europe and that, whatever we do, the Russian military organisation is so strong that we cannot hope to defeat it by conventional military methods. Therefore, he says, we must be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
How does that square with the argument of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? He is on record several times as saying that we will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. I have heard him say it in Glasgow. He says that we will never drop the atom bomb first. I have heard him say the same in this House. How can we square the Prime Minister's argument that we must not be the first to use nuclear weapons with the Secretary of State's statement at Munich that he was prepared to meet a conventional attack with the use of nuclear weapons? I do not understand the contradiction, and I think that it will be very difficult to explain.
I have heard the presentation of the Labour Party's defence policy for many years. It is extraordinarily different when the party is in office and when it is in opposition. The same applies to the Conservative Party, of course. In opposition, the argument of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State was that we must not have nuclear weapons because they are a waste of money, and we must be prepared to strengthen our conventional forces. Now their argument is different.
I do not think that the Government have any coherent defence policy. They are pushed from one position to another, and the result is this peculiar mixture of a White Paper.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As my hon. Friend knows, in the past I have been critical of the Government's defence policy. However, that is a complete travesty of the Prime Minister's position. It is just not true.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend will be able to develop this argument in his own way——

Mr. Dalyell: But it is not true.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If it is not true, it is not true. But I was here, and I saw the Government of the day assailed again and again because they did not have sufficient conventional forces. That was the argument then. Now the Government's policy is this extraordinary mixture.
The Opposition, on the other hand, attack the Government because of what is alleged to be their failure to supply adequate defence forces. They complain about recruiting. Earlier today, I asked the right hon. Member for Bannet (Mr. Maudling) if the Conservative Party was in favour of conscription or national service. He said, "Of course not." He does not deny it. Although the Conservative Party says that we cannot get sufficient forces in the conventional way, it is not prepared to be politically daring enough to do as the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and Lord Wigg have been, and say that the logical result is conscription.
What is the position on these benches? We, too, are against conscription. We say that we have not got a big enough Army to undertake the responsibilities of N.A.T.O., yet neither political party dares go to the country and say that it is in favour of National Service. The reason is that it is well known that the country is against it.
What about these recruiting figures? I live in an area where it is very difficult to see a soldier. I do not suppose that there has been a rush of recruiting in Barnet. There is no rush of recruiting anywhere. Last year we spent £3 million on advertising for recruits for the Army. The result is a considerable lack of


soldiers. I do not see any possibility of recruits coming forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that this country is in favour of N.A.T.O. That reminds me of a story. After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin, when urged, "This country has not voted for peace", seeing the soldiers streaming back from the front, said, "They are not voting by the ballot box, but they are voting with their feet".
The young men of this country today are not voting with their feet. They are not marching into the recruiting offices. There is no sign that they will be attracted, bribed or bullied there. That is the situation. They are not pacifists, like me. It is simply that the ordinary man looks at the situation and says, "Army life is not for me. It is completely irrelevant to the world in a time of atom bombs".
There was a time when we could make an appeal to the ordinary man, as in the 1914–18 War, "Your King and country need you. Go to the Army. Go to Europe and defend your wife and children against the Germans". What is the position today? According to the Minister, our forces will be met by superior forces, nuclear weapons will come into operation, and, in the chain reaction, this country will be bombed and the wives and children of our soldiers at the front will probably be among the first casualties. Nuclear warfare has completely changed the psychology of the people. I do not think that we will ever get young men rushing to join the Army again, because they realise this perhaps better than the Ministers.
We are told that we must support N.A.T.O. The hon. Member for Dorset, West has given six reasons why N.A.T.O. is deteriorating. N.A.T.O. certainly is deteriorating. I remember the first debates in this House when N.A.T.O. was formed. I have good reason to remember, because I was the Teller in the Division against the Labour Government. I do not think that anyone else survives that small minority who went into the Lobby against the formation of N.A.T.O. I remember the affectionate look that the Chief Whip at that time gave me as we met.
What is the positition in N.A.T.O. today? France is out of N.A.T.O. The idea that N.A.T.O. is strong and can get a renewal of activity by this meeting of conventional N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians is, to me, a delusion.
Many people are doubtful about the usefulness of N.A.T.O. What is the opinion of the man who knows most about N.A.T.O., Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, who was the leading spirit in N.A.T.O. for many years? Last year there was some criticism of the Government because they made cuts in our military forces, which Lord Montgomery reluctantly accepted. But they were not enough for him. I heard him speak in the House of Lords. His view was that they wanted
… savage attacks on the enormous Headquarters of N.A.T.O.: the huge staffs, all planning for a war which is not going to take place; and the massed armies of civil servants, turning out papers, half of which no one can read intelligently, and the other half not worth reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th March, 1968; Vol. 290, c. 242.]
This is the man who knows most about it. If this is a true portrayal of the headquarters of N.A.T.O., what is it like in the rank and file?
N.A.T.O. can do nothing about Czechoslovakia. The Czechs are against the Russians. They do not want N.A.T.O. Neither do the Yugoslavs, nor the Rumanians. They all realise that they are the victims of the struggle in power politics of one big powerful bloc against the other.
Dominating N.A.T.O. is the United States of America. How much consultation did Mr. Macmillan and his Government have when they nearly had the confrontation over Cuba? They were told 40 hours later. N.A.T.O. is not an organisation which can be relied upon to save this country in the situation prevailing today.
Reference has been made to Polaris. In opposition we strongly denounced Polaris, but in government we support it—at least to the extent of four-fifths. I remember the day when Mr. Macmillan stood at the Dispatch Box and announced the Polaris programme. There was fierce reaction by the then Minister of State. This is in the recollection of hon. Members. We adopted four-fifths of the Polaris programme. As a result, we are committed to an expanding programme.


The figure quoted yesterday was £350 million. But there are items which are expanding. We have the missile depot at Coulport. The original estimate was £10 million. It has now gone up to £13 million. We shall have to modify our Polaris submarines because the missiles are out of date. So we have this expensive white elephant which brings enormous dangers to people in the West of Scotland.
I, and many other Scottish Members, have read a report of a recent seminar of the Church of Scotland, held in Glasgow, in which an adviser on civil defence said:
It is a danger to the civil population. If you get a nuclear bomb dropped anywhere near the Polaris base, it means the destruction of civil life in the whole of southern Scotland.
We are not defending the people when we follow this kind of policy. We are wasting our money.

Sir Cyril Osborne: How would the hon. Gentleman defend this country if we experienced the same thing that the Czechs are experiencing?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A country cannot be defended in an atomic age by conventional military weapons or conventional military forces. The bill is soaring. The economic position is getting more serious. We cannot support this arms policy if we are to remain solvent.
In the last paragraph of the Amendment that I have put down, I have given Japan as an example. Japan is our most serious competitor in commerce and industry. Her economy is growing, and she does not have a balance of payments problem. She is driving us away from the markets of the Middle East. One reason for this is that she is not squandering £2,000 million of her money every year on armaments and nuclear weapons. She is working out a new policy. I think that we should look at Japan to see how she has become prosperous and is growing although the Government there do not accept the conventional strategy of the West.
We would be well advised to follow Japan's example, and keep out of alignments within N.A.T.O., keep away from American plans for nuclear war, and work out a new policy which is far more likely to benefit our people.

7.21 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I do not propose to follow what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I merely remind him that it is America which protects Japan, and that, therefore, Japan does not have to spend her money on defence. Czechoslovakia learned from the disasters of Hungary and she has no allies. I maintain that we are fortunate in having some. If we had followed the hon. Gentleman's policy he would not be speaking so freely today; there would not be a House in which he would be allowed to speak. The hon. Gentleman is enjoying the benefits of what he is trying to destroy.
I propose to say a few words about the West Country and what is happening there. Our prosperity and employment has been hit many time by Government action. The Plymouth Command will be closing shortly. It has been there for 185 years, and for all that time has had a commander-in-chief. Before 1752 we had a port officer. I pay tribute to these various officers who have served us so well in the West Country. I pay tribute to them for the way in which they as temporary citizens in the area have served the city as well as the Royal Navy. They have played a most important part in local affairs, and we shall miss their services.
Perhaps the Minister will let me know the final date for the closing down of the Plymouth Command, as I understand that the admiral has been appointed Governor of Guernsey and will be leaving in May. I hope that whoever is put in command in the new post will be given the facilities which exist now for receiving navies from overseas. We have many visits from overseas navies, including our N.A.T.O. allies, and this diplomatic exchange between the British Navy and overseas navies is extremely advantageous.
In winding up the debate last night the Minister of Defence for Equipment said:
As regards the production facilities which we run ourselves, the Government have recently set up a Committee under Sir John Mallabar to see whether, and if so how, the efficiency of our large-scale establishments, including R.O.F.s and Naval Dockyards, can be increased. The emphasis throughout is on better information, better management and great efficiency to give better value for money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 357.]


It will be interesting to know how this is to be undertaken. There is to be a real reorganisation of the dockyard, and we think there is to be a senior executive officer, a kind of Lord Beeching. I should like to know what his duties will be, and what kind of salary he will receive, because if there is to be an official of this type he will need a good salary to undertake this job. And what qualifications will he have to have?
I hope that the run-down, which will involve 2,500 men, will be eased as much as possible over the years. Perhaps the Minster will say whether he has had successful talks with the trade unions about the retraining of men in the dockyard so that they can find other jobs and not be made redundant.
I think—and this probably applies to other dockyards—that it will be necessary to attract younger people into the dockyards, but young men and apprentices will not come in if they do not have adequate wages and security for the future. The other day I was informed that the basic wage for an unskilled man is just over £12 a week. Some of these men are married. I have checked this point and I discovered that in some cases it is necessary to provide food vouchers, because without them some of these young men cannot support their wives. It is wrong that many of these people should have to rely on overtime to get an adequate living wage, and I hope that this matter will be looked into with a sense of urgency as for generations the people of Plymouth have done an excellent job in the dockyard.
I gather that the "Ark Royal" will be ready for commissioning in February 1970, and as more than £30 million will have been spent on her perhaps we can be told what is to be the future of this great ship when she ends her carrier career in the 1970s. Not long ago, at the Staff College, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the carriers were the "virility of the Navy". The right hon. Gentleman seems to have changed his mind, but there must be a rôle for this ship, otherwise the taxpaper will not be pleased at having to pay this vast amount of money.
I propose now to say something about recruiting. I did not hear the broadcast, but it has been reported to me that the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Services were to get a rise

in the near future—I know from personal contacts and from letters which I have received. The Prices and Incomes Board is involved in assessing future pay. I have not seen the confidential document, but I understand that officers and men have been given a form to fill in. I gather that although the questions are carefully worded they are rather confusing and may not give the real picture of the situation in deciding future pay. I hope that the Minister may be able to look at the questions which are being asked, because I fear that he may not get the answers which he wants if the form goes forward in its present style.
I have two suggestions to make about recruiting for the Royal Navy. The Navy, when going overseas, either had to leave families behind, often with relatives, or take them overseas, but now they are in considerable difficulty over housing. I should like consideration to be given to what I call roof to roof housing. In other words, there should be a small surplus of hirings or houses or flats for Royal Navy families. Service personnel are getting married at a much younger age now than they used to, and one reason for the bad recruiting figures is that they cannot house their families. If the age of majority is to be brought down to 18 and men will be entitled to get married at that age without Service or parental consent, will they receive a marriage allowance, and will they be given married quarters which they do not get now?
I come, next, to the vexed question of pensions. I should like to see a change in the present arrangement. I suggest that instead of giving long-service people pensions, men of the Royal Navy should get extra money for the time they go to sea, because that is the most expensive spell of duty. Men who have been in the Service for 22 years often want to commute their pensions. In days gone by a pension was the only thing on which these men had to rely when they retired, very often when they were in their forties, having served for 22 years. Now they can get another job, and if they have sufficient money they can pay for a pension other than the retirement pension granted by the State, but a lump sum payment would be of great advantage to them because it would enable them to set up a small business, to buy a house, or to make an investment.
I hope that this will be considered in the future, as there is considerable anxiety at the moment in recruiting personnel who do not want to go overseas. If extra money could be obtained for extra sea time it might make a great difference to recruiting.
Turning to the question of the Western European Union, I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), who has done so much in the work of W.E.U.
I was very pleased to learn that in Brussels, on 16th January, N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers approved the "On call" system for the allied naval forces in the Mediterranean. I gathered that they would be assembled twice a year for exercising and for good will visits. I would like to know what part we will play in this. How many ships will we be able to provide for this exercise?
There has been a suggestion that the Western European Union should also have an "On-call force". I would deprecate this action. I know the reasons that have been suggested. N.A.T.O. has agreed to an on-call force and the Americans are in that, but they would not be in anything dealing with the Western European Union, so I hope that this will not be considered. Even the French Foreign Minister, in November, 1968, agreed that "the situation brought about by the expansion of Soviet activity required vigilance to safeguard allied security". I hope that in the future France may consider rejoining N.A.T.O. The present situation demands that Europe should be co-ordinating more and more.
I hope that Germany and Italy may be persuaded to contribute more to the expenses, because their share is comparatively small to the rest of the allies. The Western European Union is a very important organisation, and we should use this far more for political co-operation. I was surprised that when we went to these meetings we were briefed only from the Foreign Office and not the Ministry of Defence. It is absolutely essential that it should assist as we are not given sufficient briefing before we go to meetings. There are many things we could have known for the last meeting. It was very disadvantageous that we

did not know them. Either we were not trusted with the information before we went, or it is not considered necessary to give us this. This should be rectified if we are to be efficient.
I would suggest that perhaps some time should be given to debating some of the reports produced by Western European Union. The hon. Member for Bilston, who was Chairman of the Defence Committe has produced excellent reports on several occasions, one of which I quoted in the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wing-field-Digby) also produced a very fine report on Czechoslovakia and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) produced one dealing with the Mediterranean. These have been extremely well documented both in English and French. Infinite pains have been taken over them by the rapporteur and those who helped to compile them and it is a pity that they should be wasted.
When we had the last N.A.T.O. exercises it was stated that the Royal Navy employed every available ship. Merchant ships were chartered, and naval reservists called up. What does "every available ship" mean? Supposing that there had been some flare-up in another part of the world, had we sufficient forces to undertake any action, for instance, in the Pacific? There is general unease in the country, particularly amongst the young and the women, and diplomatic relations have not been very successful recently. One of the difficulties is that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister sees only too clearly his own point of view.
I would end by quoting from The Times leading article this morning:
Mr. Healey's strategic thinking would inspire more confidence if it avoided giving the impression that the future can turn out only his way.
This is what I fear very much; he does give that impression, though he has the help of many experts.
The unknown is still the general condition in international affairs, both in peace and war.
In no period of history has there ever been a more frightening situation and have we been less prepared. I hope that we shall continue to contribute to the N.A.T.O. Alliance for the sake not only of this country, but of Europe.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I would follow the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) in connection with the work of the Western European Union, but I hope she will forgive me if I concentrate on other issues which I think are just as important in a debate of this nature.
It has been my privilege to preside over the Defence and Armaments Committee of the Western European Union for some years. I have had the very active support of Members on both sides of the House. I produced three reports on the cost of defending Europe. In the process of producing these three reports, with the help of the members of the Committee, I came to the conclusion that our responsibilities for defence in the Western world was overstretched, that we were making a far bigger contribution than we should be expected to make. That is why I have signed the Amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
There are four views which have arisen in this debate. The view of my good friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), a friend from the days of the Independent Labour Party, who has always been a pacifist. I was a pacifist along with him up to the time of the Spanish Civil War. I went out to fight in the Spanish Civil War because I was disillusioned about pacifism and thought that one reached a period in one's life when one had to defend one's ideals—the ideals of human freedom. I can quite understand and appreciate, therefore, the views of my hon. Friend, and I wish there were more people in the world like him. I am sure that in a few decades the pacifist view will be the accepted view in our world because we shall have reached a more civilised state in every country. We will realise the utter stupidity, the suicidal stupidity, of involving the human race in war.
Much has been said in this debate about the manpower problem, the problem of recruitment and the contribution we make, of fail to make, to the defence of the West. I have looked at this problem and discovered just what was happening in the world. I find that the percentage of the Regular and Armed Forces

of military age is in Britain 4 per cent., France 4·9 per cent., Germany 3·9 per cent.—so we are well above Germany, and all these are conscripted armies except our own—Italy, 3·1 per cent., the Netherlands 4·1 per cent., Sweden—a neutral country—3·7 per cent., Australia 3·4 per cent., Canada 2·5 per cent., and New Zealand just over 1 per cent.
I do not know what the argument is all about. We are making a very good contribution as far as the percentage of those of military age is concerned. Our percentage is higher than the average for Western Europe. That argument about manpower is not related to reality.
As to the figure of 170,000 British reserves continental countries need massive reserves. Britain has not been invaded for hundreds of years and does not need strong reserves: on the home front they are a waste of money.
I come to the percentage of gross national product which various countries devote to defence expenditure. Belgium, a relatively rich country, spends only 2·8 per cent. and receives many N.A.T.O. contracts which probably enable her to recoup about one-half of that expenditure. Denmark spends 2·6 per cent., Germany 4·3 per cent., Luxembourg 1·2 per cent., the Netherlands 4 per cent., Norway 3·7 per cent., and Australia, about which we have heard so much from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), spends 4·9 per cent. Britain, faced with balance of payments problems every year, spends a larger proportion of her gross national product on defence—6 percent.—than most of the countries in the alliance. The arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) are not valid, nor are the arguments of hon. Members opposite. We cannot afford to spend more of our gross national product on defence than our wealthy allies. It is not nonsense to table an Amendment to suggest that these defence costs and responsibilities must be harmonised.
The British Army of the Rhine costs us £200 million a year, of which we must find £90 million in German currency. We employ nearly 40,000 German civilians in bases and pay them in marks. Those marks must be earned by the toil and intelligence of the British people.
It is not asking too much that the 14 nations in the Alliance should be willing to accept the burden of the offset costs which are borne by a country like Britain.
I hope that those hon. Members opposite who work with me in some of the Committees of Europe will forgive me for taking up the points they make about the Persian Gulf and our presence east of Suez. These are only party political arguments. One-sixteenth of all Government expenditure, or £600 million a year, was going on bases abroad. We cannot afford that money any longer. We are no longer a world power. We have not a great empire to protect. We had, and still have, British Servicemen in 23 different countries. In some of these countries British Servicemen could not leave the bases in khaki. They were so unpopular that before leaving the bases they had to don civilian clothes. They could not carry their equipment. The whole orientation of our foreign and defence policy must change with the great revolution of human rights which has swept the world and compelled us, sometimes reluctantly, to give independence to our former colonies. It was costing us £150 million to stay in the Persian Gulf.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Annex H to last year's Defence Statement put the figure at £15 million. Annex H to this year's Statement says that the cost in foreign exchange is £11 million. As there are only 6,500 troops in the Persian Gulf, it is unrealistic to say that the cost is £150 million. Our presence there yields us £130 million a year in dividends, and perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman is thinking of.

Mr. Edwards: For three years I was Chairman of the Defence and Overseas Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee. Our bases had never been costed before. We went to the bases and costed them. It is contended that we get all this money back from investments in oil. Other countries—France, for example—had bases in the Arab world. De Gaulle wound them all up. There are no American or Japanese bases in the Persian Gulf, but they get a good deal of their oil from the Middle East. Eighty per cent. of all the oil coming to Europe comes from the Middle East. During the six days' war

only oil destined for Britain was stopped, and that was because we had bases in the Middle East and were regarded as the wicked imperialists who were supporting the Israelis.
In any case, these bases were rapidly becoming death traps for our Servicemen. In Aden our base was surrounded by a quarter of million hostile Arabs. How can such a base be maintained? How can a base be maintained in Bahrain when the whole population of the island was opposed to our having a base there? How can we maintain bases in the hot deserts of the Trucial Coast, with 16 different little sheikhdoms?
We reach the point when we cannot police the world any longer. We have no right to do it. In any case, it is not practical politics. We cannot afford it. In so far as the Government have decided to withdraw our bases east of Suez, in line with their manifestos at two General Elections, they deserve the support of reasonable men and women and of Members of Parliament in particular.

Mr. James Dance: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, were it not for the decision of the Secretary of State of Defence, much of the £15 million would have been paid for by the local sheikhs? If they were prepared to pay the money to keep us there, are we so unpopular?

Mr. Edwards: We were keeping the local sheikhs and sultans, these oil millionaires, in power, and we have been keeping them in power too long because they belong to the past and not the future. We trained an army in South Arabia and set up an executive committee of sheikhs and sultans. As soon as we decided to leave the base the army turned against us and shot 22 British Servicemen. And what happened to the sheikhs and sultans? As soon as we started to withdrawn they disappeared as though they had never existed. They are exiled in Cairo, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. They never had the support of their own people. Why should we keep these people in power when they have no visible means of support in their own countries?

Mr. John Rankin: Am I not correct in saying that we should support the Government because they are


withdrawing from our bases east of Suez? But would my hon. Friend not agree that the rôle which we are giving up in the Far East is being taken over by the United States with our support?

Mr. Edwards: Some hon. Members have been waiting for two days to take part in the debate, so, although I am not uninterested in the issue which my hon. Friend raises, I will not deal with it now.
The huge base in Singapore, of course, cost us—there is no question of the figures—£40 million a year. We employed 35,000 people there. The confrontation cost over £200 million a year. That is more than our total income from all our investments in Malaysia and Singapore, which makes it a very costly investment.
How far could they be defended when Indonesia took over our plantations, insurance companies and banks? Did we send our battleships to Indonesia and say, "Hand them over or we will shoot into your villages as we did in the past"? We did nothing of the kind. These old gunboat arguments about defending British investments against the sweeping revolution of human rights belong to the past and not to modern history.
The Government's White Paper is a move in the right direction. There is room for considerable reductions in defence expenditure. We can save millions of £s a year by civilianising the Army and the Air orce as we have civilianised the Navy right up to the fighting ships. We can save a good deal of money in Europe. For example, there is a major in S.H.A.P.E. who organises 13 buses every day to take children to school. In a military organisation, that is nonsense; the contracts should go to local bus interests.
There is too much duplication. The whole early warning system in Europe, which will cost £200 million, is outmoded. The six-day war proved that those systems are of no avail, because the bomber planes and the missiles go just underneath that ceiling and no warning can be given. This is a waste of people's money. Then we think of all the hospitals and schools and houses which we could build with this money. I do not know what is in the Opposition's

mind. Every man, woman and child in this country has to find every week 15s. 10d. for defence alone. We have reached the limits of what the economy can stand for defence costs and it is time that we stopped this suicidal madness which is getting us nowhere.
As for the defence of Western Europe, there are 7,600 tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe, half of them with a greater explosive power than that dropped on Hiroshima. The amount of explosive in the world is now equivalent to over 1,100 tons of T.N.T. for every man, woman and child. This is the nth degree of human stupidity and it is time that we had realistic discussions about cutting down this expenditure and talking peace, not war.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I disagree with almost everything which the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) said. I disagreed with his figures and the conclusions which he drew from them. If I did not know him, I would have thought that he had gone back in his philosophy to the days before he fought in the Spanish Civil War and now shared the views of his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). What makes it more unfortunate is the position that he holds. He is, after all, the Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Western European Union. He might have done us the courtesy of doing his homework before he came here——

Mr. Robert Edwards: I did.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Then he has obviously not studied the White Paper. His figures were corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing). The cost of our bases in the Persian Gulf is £11 million, for the Far East £72 million. The incomes from those two bases are entirely different from what the hon. Gentleman said. That from the Far East is £134 million a year. The hon. Member should do more homework on that.
The same applies to most of the other figures which he gave about the W.E.U. and the percentage which was being spent by various countries. The nub of the debate and of our argument is that the European defence effort by this country


is not enough to meet likely future circumstances. Far from cutting down our percentage of the g.n.p. devoted to defence to that of other European countries, we are urging that they should increase theirs to our level. Many of them are not playing their part.
Most of the figures the hon. Member gave were interesting in underlining the point that other European countries are not spending the percentage which they should be and which many have undertaken to spend. I hope that when he goes back to the Defence Committee the hon. Member will tell the other countries to increase their expenditure in line with ours and not speak as he has done tonight.
Most of the speeches in this debate, from both sides, have shown a good deal of unanimity about our difficulties and problems. I was particularly impressed by the speech yesterday of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and his closely reasoned argument. I agreed with much of what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Sninwell) said, but, as always when he is making an interesting speech, he posed many questions but did not actually answer any of them. He did answer one question today when he said that N.A.T.O. must have a credible deterrent in the European theatre.
In his quick gallop round the world—and he indeed spoke rapidly—the Minister of Defence for Administration made some extraordinary statements. When referring to the Gulf and our position in Aden he said that there was not much point in our remaining in that area because we had no capability in Africa. However, he went on to say that we were maintaining a perfectly credible force there, although he omitted to mention the Simonstown base.
The Minister said that if we withdrew from our base in the Gulf costs would be reduced. I found it difficult to comprehend the figures he gave because he said that the forces to be withdrawn from the Gulf would be returned to Britain and would have to be maintained either here or committed to N.A.T.O. His remarks were contradictory to say the least.
There has been considerable agreement between the two sides of the House

about the danger which exists in Europe and the possibility of a confrontation with the Communist bloc. Are we in a position to meet such a threat? Is our deterrent credible? Could we stop an attack if it came in strength on the European central front through Germany or on the flanks of N.A.T.O.?
It is almost inconceivable that either we or the Americans would be prepared to initiate a nuclear strike. The Prime Minister has taken this view all along. Repeatedly he has said that he could not conceive of Britain or America being the first to press the nuclear button. Yet the defence policy of the Secretary of State now is that we must have a flexible response—the word "tripwire" is no longer used—and that when that fails a nuclear response will be necessary to stop an attack.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) made it clear in his speech yesterday that once one starts using tactical nuclear weapons escalation to a strategic strike is inevitable. This means that the Secretary of State is saying that we must have conventional forces to delay an attack for a limited time to allow negotiations to take place and that if nothing successful comes of that we will adopt a first strike policy. In other words, we will stop an attacker initially by tactical nuclear weapons—use them on the enemy's communication centres and so on—and escalate up from there. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman considers this to be credible.
If the Secretary of State is relying on a conventional response to an attack at the centre or on the flanks of N.A.T.O., such a response must be flexible. The hon. Member for Bilston made it clear that N.A.T.O.'s defences are not adequate to meet a possible threat at the conventional level. The Secretary of State must, therefore, get the balance right, not only by encouraging our N.A.T.O. allies to increase their contribution but by ensuring that we are making our maximum contribution.
Throughout the debate hon. Members have spoken of the necessity to increase the strength of our forces—Army, Air Force and Navy—but there has not been much talk of increasing the fire power which the Services can deploy in the field. When we debate the Army Estimates this will, no doubt, be a central theme.


Fire power is as important as the number of people on the ground. In any warfare one must have a certain number of people to pull the triggers, but the quantity of fire that they can spend out is equally if not more important.

Mr. James Davidson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the need to increase our conventional contribution to N.A.T.O. in Europe. How does he tie this in with the remark made yesterday by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that we are over-committed in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My right hon. and learned Friend was saying that we were over-committed in N.A.T.O. compared with the total forces available to us. In our view we are not committed solely to N.A.T.O. We have commitments in, for example, the Near East. We have a presence, with our allies, in the Far East. We are not like hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. We do not break our promises and leave our friends in the lurch.
In considering the question of conventional forces in Europe, what worries me particularly is not so much a central blow through the plains of Germany—if that were to happen I hope that we shall have sufficient forces in due course to meet it, including a confrontation over Berlin, although I do not believe that that will happen—but an attack on the flanks of the N.A.T.O. screen, particularly its southern flanks. There is much more possibility of danger arising there. I cannot believe that at present either we or N.A.T.O. have sufficient forces available on the northern or southern flanks to contain any threat that might at a future date come from the Communist bloc.
Hon. Members have referred to Yugoslavia, Rumania and Austria. All of these are possible areas where there might be a threat to security. Despite the Secretary of State's comment that we could blow every Russian ship out of the water in the Mediterranean, I do not believe that we have sufficient forces in this area either. We must increase our conventional forces in terms of manpower and fire power, and particularly our forces assigned to N.A.T.O.
In his speech yesterday the hon. Member for Lewisham, North said that there

was a danger of the Americans saying should we build up our strength sufficiently, "Now that you are building up to a sufficient strength in Europe, we will go home and concentrate our defence forces on the Far East and the Pacific." This danger exists, and that is why we should make it clear that we have commitments, in addition to N.A.T.O., to honour. We have commitments not only in the Near East but in the Far East. Our forces in those areas will be sharing the defence burdens which are being carried by our allies there. If we take that view, I am sure that the Americans will continue to uphold their commitment to Europe. If they were not to do so, N.A.T.O. and Europe could be in the gravest possible difficulties.
We have heard a lot about the reasons for mistakes with reference to recruiting. I do not know whether or not we can put them right. I hope that we can. The whole of the argument and talk that has gone on yesterday and this afternoon will be wasted time if we cannot get recruiting on an upward rather than a downward trend. I understood from the Minister of Defence for Administration this afternoon that we face a shortage of 9,000 this year, which will rise to 14,000 for the Army alone in the year ahead. That is a calamitous figure. There is no one to blame but the Secretary of State for Defence. The Government have made savage cuts which have been announced without warning and then made piecemeal patching of the Armed Forces to make the best of a bad job. There is complete lack of knowledge of what kind of career those in the Armed Forces can have. There is tremendous dubiety among officers about how they should proceed and what will happen to them.
The dropping of territorial recruitment of famous named regiments was a grave error. Everything that the Secretary of State and the Government have done in this field in the last few years has been wrong. The result is that the morale of the Forces is low. There is no getting away from that. The reasons given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire for men not joining the Armed Forces are not true. People still have a spirit of adventure and want to serve their country and to see that it is not brow-beaten by an aggressor from overseas. This may sound strange to his ears, but many young men are still proud to be English and to serve


Her Majesty. But we cannot get them to join unless we change the atmosphere.
The situation over reserves is more parlous than ever. I shall not go into the question of who would defend us against a parachute attack, because that has been dealt with. At the moment we have only 56,000 reserves earmarked to reinforce existing Regular forces. There are no complete units left in the reserve forces. These 56,000 are to fill in gaps in the Regular army overseas. It is utterly wrong that whole units should have been disbanded and none left within the reserve army.
I hope that even at this late hour the Secretary of State will review his ideas about having a reserve army and resuscitating the TAVR III. Unless the right hon. Gentleman changes his policy, I must accuse him of putting the country in jeopardy, for I do not believe he is carrying out the rôle of Secretary of State for Defence in seeing that the defences of the country are proper, viable and credible. I do not believe that under the right hon. Gentleman they are.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his arguments. I was intrigued by his words when he repeated the mistake so often made by hon. Members opposite in confusing the image of the Forces and their attraction for those outside, which is understandably damaged by the carping criticism of the Opposition, with the state of morale inside the Services themselves. The level of re-engagement in the Services speaks for itself. This contradicts the sweeping generalisations about morale made by the Opposition.
The fundamental truth about the nuclear age is interdependence of human society. Economically and strategically our interests are inextricably linked with those of the world community as a whole. In every international conflict, however geographically remote, and in some national crises there are the seeds of a conflagration which could spell annihilation for Britain. We cannot afford to limit our concern for security to any one continent or region.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a characteristically lucid speech

yesterday, dwelt at great length on our retrenchment in Europe. It is undeniable that we are unable to police the world alone. The Government deserve great credit for having faced up to this, but we cannot retreat ostrich-like into Europe, pretending that problems elsewhere do not threaten our survival. The least likely cause of nuclear war is a direct confrontation between the super Powers in Europe or elsewhere. A far more likely cause is the escalation of a so-called localised conflict into which the super Powers may be indirectly drawn.
I identify three areas where this could happen. First, there is the Middle East. Several hon. Members have driven home the fact that the presence of the Soviet Union and the West in that area emphasises that the conflict is not confined to Arabs and Israelis. Secondly, there is South-East Asia. The dangers there hardly need to be spelled out yet again. Thirdly, there is the sphere of Southern Africa. While the danger there may not be so immediate, it is nonetheless present.
My right hon. Friend, as spokesman on African and Commonwealth Affairs when we were in Opposition, pointed out clearly that, however slowly the beginnings, once the Africans of Southern Africa decided that they could achieve their objectives only by force the course of events would be no longer in doubt. Articulate leaders are now making that decision. Already in the Portuguese territories of Mozambique and Angola, in proportion to population and national income, Portugal has more men and resources involved in active combat than the Americans have in Vietnam.
In Rhodesia, South West Africa and the Caprivi Strip, while it would be foolish to exaggerate their scale, the first guerrilla actions have already taken place. There is a real danger that the only practical support for these guerrillas will be forthcoming from the Communist world, and that as the white minority comes under pressure the West will find itself increasingly involved on the side of the minority. We might find ourselves in a new Vietnam-type predicament, for which Britain would carry a great deal of direct responsibility.
If we cannot police the world alone, we must obviously give a great deal more thought than is evident in the White


Paper to collective security agreements throughout the world under the United Nations in which we must be ready to play our part. I always have an admiration for countries such as Canada, Ireland, our close neighbour, and others in Scandinavia, which take this prospect very seriously. Such agreements would obviously need to be guaranteed by the super Powers.
We also need to reopen discussions on the feasibility of a United Nations police force, discussions which have been conspicuous by their absence in recent years. Why do we always turn to the United Nations for action in international crises as a last resort, when everything else has been tried? To speak of projects of this kind may seem like supporting forlorn hopes at this moment, but unless we keep plugging away on this front we can be accused of courting disaster.
The late President Kennedy spoke of the U.N. as our last best hope. It would be an indictment of our society should we ever decide to accept for all time the theory of the deterrent with its potential elimination of countless millions of men and women as the basis for our security. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) said yesterday, our best guarantee of lasting defence will always be comprehensive and general disarmament. It is sad that this objective was nowhere mentioned in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday.
The defeatism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) today was uncharacteristic. Would he recommend, as is logical if he is to follow his own argument, the abolition of the post of Minister with special responsibility for disarmament? It is high time we brought disarmament from the back rooms of the Foreign Office and put it in the centre of our defence considerations where it belongs. For a start, we should know a good deal more about our arms sale policy.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that the one development which might lead the Soviet Union to consider a preemptive strike would be the nuclear arming of West Germany. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Munich speech in this respect. What worries me at least as much are

the possible implications in terms of defence and disarmament of the gas centrifuge developments in which we are proposing technological co-operation with the Germans. An unavoidable by-product of this will be the spreading of the raw materials with which nuclear weapons can be made. Are we completely satisfied that we are not putting the trigger on the West German finger?
Our defence policy is motivated by the desire to defend what is best in our way of life—freedom and democracy. If N.A.T.O. is to be the cornerstone of that defence policy it is a shaky cornerstone while it contains such contradictions to its expressed objectives as the Governments of Greece and Portugal. It exposes some notable contradictions in British policy.
For example, my right hon. Friend, referring to Southern Africa, said on 18th December last year, in answer to a supplementary Question by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison):
… many considerations of foreign policy as well as security have to be borne in mind when decisions on this type of matter are taken. I believe that it is important for the interests of the United Kingdom that we should be seen to be in support of the natural desire of the African peoples for independence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1363.]
It is difficult to see how this will be recognised by the African peoples so long as we have a close ally, the Government of Portugal, which is waging such a cruel war of repression in Mozambique and Angola. What action are the Government taking to pressurise our more wayward Allies?
Both international and national defence programmes require support facilities, and the White Paper has a good deal to say about streamlining ours. Speaking as the Member for a constituency very much involved in one such support facility, I should like to place on record how much we appreciate the conclusion of the Dockyard Review. If I pose a few questions to the Minister, it is to probe the more detailed thinking behind the general paragraphs, which certainly point in the right direction.
Portsmouth now knows where it stands vis-à-vis the Navy and its dockyard for a long time ahead. We welcome the news of specialisaton, and will be proud to look after the modern and sophisticated


guided missile destroyers. We know that the proposed rundown in the size of the labour force by the mid-1970s is very much in line with the rate of natural wastage in recent years, and we are reassured by pledges that there will be no redundancies if unions and management co-operate in retraining, and by the offer of establishment to all those with more than five years' service.
Of course, a modernised yard with better working conditions and pay for those employed there is what everybody wants to see, but how far are the Department's management plans geared to ensure this? A new executive at Bath or somewhere else, and more power for the general managers, are all very well, but what other detailed arrangements have been made? Is a Civil Service structure really suited to a production job of this kind? Do not we need to move towards a specialised corporation with each yard producing an annual profit and loss account, as in the United States? Is not genuine local accountability essential? What of the duplication of management between naval and civilian staff? Is this efficient? Are the dividing lines between the responsibilities of the general managers and Flag Officers or Admiral Superintendents clear? What about the position further down the line? How about worker-management relationships? Are they all that they could be? What of the white-collar-blue-collar union relations? Are there too many unions in the yards? Is there too much national negotiation and too little at the local level? Should the new Commission on Industrial Relations perhaps look at the yards in this respect? From my experience, I know that there have been failures in communication.
The Navy puts a commendable emphasis these days on its public relations with city leaders, but how many men in the dockyard have a clear picture of their overall task, let alone of the overall rôle of the Navy they are servicing? The men do not accept the increasing ratio of pre-planning staff to production workers as either efficient or necessary. If it is efficient and necessary, why has this credibility gap developed? Dockyard newspapers, like Trident in Portsmouth, may be a welcome innovation, but no one could pretend that they are the complete answer. There are also widespread

misgivings among the men about the criteria used when deciding whether to put work out to private contract.
In the other direction, I should be interested to know why there cannot be more dynamic and methodical arrangements to bring civil or other defence work into the yards. It cannot be beyond the wit of management to devise developments in this respect which would not interfere with naval priorities. Why not use the capital resources and skill of the men as a model growth point in our economy? The Government should set standards in industry. These and other questions will no doubt be considered by the Mallabar Committee. They are important if the generalised wish for better dockyards is to be translated into reality.
Quite apart from achieving the reduced size of labour force without redundancy, is my right hon. Friend convinced that he can hold the right calibre of management and labour at the proposed new level? Average national earnings for male manual workers are just about £23 a week. In the South East the average is higher. But in the Portsmouth dockyard the most skilled men have average earnings of only a little over £23 a week—£23 5s. 10d. to be precise. Semi-skilled men have average earnings of £20 4s. 10d., and non-skilled have average earnings of £16 4s. 5d. Those are all averages; there are not a few men in the yards who earn less than £16 a week. Younger men are not only leaving the yard but, because of the shortage of alternative work, are leaving Portsmouth altogether. Quite apart from productivity agreements, what is the Department to do about this critical situation?
The social significance for a city with above-average unemployment of a 20 per cent. reduction in the job opportunities in the dockyard should not be underestimated. A Government committed to social and economic planning must at once make sure that the city's leaders are invited to the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs, and the Department of Employment and Productivity to discuss alternative economic development in the city. The Defence Department must be kept under pressure for the release of Service land for other industry and commerce.
In the dockyard and other Service establishments, the people of Portsmouth,


like those of other dockyard cities, have been proud to service what has been the greatest Navy in the world and is still the greatest of Europe. We owe it to these communities to assist them in every possible way in the adjustments which we now expect them to make.
The White Paper as a whole points firmly in a sensible direction. It is surely a score for civilisation that we are now spending as a nation more on education than on defence. It is a pity that we are still spending 12 times as much, in terms of gross national product, on defence as on overseas aid and development. No Socialist can ever rest content with that. It is sometimes said that what is wrong with politicians today is that it is all tactics and no strategy. We have an outstanding Secretary of State for Defence. He must avoid temptations to become preoccupied with reflex tactics. In the nuclear age, tactics without strategy in the building of peace are the road to eventual disaster.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. Without any unkindness, I would say to him that we on this side very much look forward to the return to the House of his predecessor, who would put forward a rather more robust argument than he has done.
I wish that I could see the utopia that many hon. Members opposite believe can take place—namely, when the nations of the world will not need any defences at all, when we shall all live peacefully with each other. But I fear that we are a long way from that day. Until it arrives, we have to see that we have an effective defence force for the free world.
But no defence force can be effective without efficient recruitment. Much has been said by other hon. Members about recruiting. I believe that it is the whole basis of our future defence. Every weekend we see newspaper advertisements, on which the Government spend a lot of money, extolling the merits of the forces. One only has to see them to realise how desperate the Government are and how much they recognise that recruiting has dropped. It is typical of the Government that, as they run a thing down, they

spend a lot of money advertising its merits. The Postmaster-General has done this with the Post Office.
In 1964, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines had a strength of 84,251. In December, 1968, the figure was 77,467. The number in the Army, during the same period, dropped from 155,000 to 148,000. The Royal Air Force registered an even more astonishing drop—from 102,770 to 88,539. There has been a drop all round. What caused it? I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are right when they say that it is largely to do with pay. I want to put a case which I do not think has yet been made in the debate. It concerns the pay of skilled tradesmen in the Services.
There is a great discrepancy between what they receive and what they would receive in civil life. I want to emphasise that fact. Having been in the Services myself, I know how skilled some of these men can be. For example, at regimental level, the L.A.D. has extremely skilled mechanics, who should be paid the rate for the job. So many of the weapons these men handle today are highly complex and very sophisticated.
Then there is the uncertainty. This, too, is a very important factor. When I was in the Far East last September, in the New Territories of Hong Kong, I talked to a bombardier, a young married man. He was extremely worried. I asked him what he was going to do. He replied, "I do not know. I am being posted back to England and my regiment is being disbanded. Whether I shall be made redundant, or can get another posting, I do not know". He was not the only man who spoke to me like that. These men are worried. They do not know what their future is to be.
Another point on which I think we are all agreed is that young men are getting married much earlier than in the past. I do not believe that there are enough married quarters in this country, although there are in other parts of the world—Malta being a fine example. But if we do not have enough married quarters here and young men therefore cannot get married, this is a great deterrent to their joining the forces.
Then, of course, there is the question of the excitement of overseas tours. One


of the inducements for young men to join the forces in the past was the idea that they would travel and see the world, not just soldier in this country. I am afraid that the time may come when an overseas posting will be the Isle of Wight. I hope that will not come about, but it is the tendency with the present Government. The other point which has affected recruiting is the difficulty for wives. A soldier, or an airman particularly, goes on an unaccompanied tour to a place like Gann. There is the problem for the wives left behind. They cannot necessarily live with in-laws and may not be able to carry on with the quarters they had. We must pay attention to this.
I deal now with the Far East. I was out there recently and was extremely interested in what I saw, and grateful for the opportunity of seeing it. The Secretary of State was misleading when he said that the Opposition would maintain, indefinitely, existing commitments in the Far East and the Gulf. This is not true, because as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in a powerful speech:
We shall be acting in South-East Asia not as a solitary great power, but as one of a group of like-minded countries who share the same aims. In this connection I would like to suggest that one possibility which might then be well worth considering would be for the Government of Singapore to lease some of the present base facilities in so far as they are necessary on the island to a joint organisation of the five Commonwealth Governments concerned—that is, Singapore itself. Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand and Britain. Such an arrangement would be a genuine and practical proof of the determination of these five Governments to cooperate in the defence of their common aims.
They are exactly our proposals. We do not intend to carry on with the vast bases we had in the past, far from it, but we want to have our presence felt out there. Much has been said about the Russian presence in the Mediterranean, the Gulf and the Red Sea. It has been said that this is a purely political. If they are there, and if it is important politically for them to be there, it is also important for the free world to make our presence felt.
Many people have forgotten that we have £3,000 million invested in the Gulf, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. That is a large sum of money, and it brings in a very good return. Surely

it is essential that we should have a presence out there to stop some minor—initially—attack.

Mr. Rankin: What will the hon. Gentleman do about the £3,000 million, when Hong Kong reverts to China under the agreement to which we are signatories?

Mr. Dance: I do not think that Hong Kong will revert to China. I have spoken to people out there about this. It is far too valuable to Mao for getting currency backwards and forwards. When the lease has expired I think that the arrangement will be carried on. But who can tell? Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is an absolute certainty that we will not carry on there. In any case, the investments are not only in Hong Kong, there is a large amount in the Gulf and Singapore.
I have mentioned the idea of a combined operation between the nation members of the Commonwealth. This is not a piped ream, because we have seen it in operation at Terendah, in Malaysia. We saw two infantry brigades there, one Australian and one British with quite a lot of support from local Malaysian troops and civilians. It worked very well and I do not see why it should not be extended. Further north, at Butterfield, there is a joint air station. The station commander is an extremely able Australian. It is a first-class station, doing a first-class job of work.
I believe very definitely that we should build up this joint operation. One of the things which worried me when I was in the Far East was the way in which people thought, and told us, that we had let them down. I did not like that at all. Quite apart from the question of our investments, which is a selfish part of the argument, we also have in the Far East our honour and our commitments to our friends there; and it was not pleasant to hear very nice people saying, "You have let us down".
In the New Territories near Hong Kong there is a fairly large border with Red China. Thanks to the fact that we have a brigade of Gurkhas and other troops there, Mao has not attempted anything because he knows that there is a little more than a trip wire and that he would lose face if he made a minor attack there and was driven back. There


is no question that if he chose to mount a major attack we could not stay there for any length of time. But the mere fact that those Gurkha troops are on that border is, I am certain, one of the reasons we have preserved the peace, because do not forget that Macao had no defence——

Mr. Rankin: Rubbish.

Mr. Dance: It is not rubbish at all. Go and discuss this with the Army commanders and the people there who really know their job. What you are saying is nonsense. There is no question about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I made no remarks whatever.

Mr. Dance: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I sincerely hope that in saying we are going to get out of the Far East by the end of 1971 the Government will not do what they did over the TSR2, that is, made quite certain that no one could ever resuscitate it by destroying the jigs. Are the Government going to make it impossible to return there and carry on with out promises and the commitments which we have given to those people out there? I would like to hear the answer to that.
I come back towards home, to Simons-town. With the Suez Canal closed, it must be obvious that Simonstown is of vital importance to us. Various hon. Members on the other side have said that the amount we are spending on defence is vast and the amount we have to pay for the Army in Germany is very great in foreign currency. Why will not the Government drop their bitter hatred of South Africa and start once again to supply that country with aircraft and frigates which could never, never, under any circumstances be used for keeping down a civil riot there? Why do we not earn more money in that way and, at the same time, support our colleagues out there in the defence of the free would?

Mr. Judd: Will the hon. Gentleman please define what he means by the free world, because I do not understand how he equates South Africa with the free world?

Mr. Dance: I am referring to those who believe in the kind of freedom in which we all believe. I do not like apartheid any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but I am much closer to South Africa than I am to Communism.
Let us come nearer home, into the Mediterranean, to Malta. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should let our friends in Malta down by pulling out of there. Admittedly, Malta is not the best terrain in the world for Army exercises; that is perfectly true. But not very far away, in Libya, there is terrain which could be used. I believe I am right in saying that it was the 1st Guards Brigade who, a year or so ago, had a very successful exercise called "Starlight", when they landed at El Adem and made an advance to Derna.
There may be a reason for not using ordinary ground forces there, but one thing which cannot be denied is that from the training point of view, in the air and on and beneath the sea, there is nowhere equal to Malta. As a civilian, I have been fortunate to have had experience of all three. I have been in a Shackleton searching for a submarine; I have been in a Diamond class destroyer searching for a submarine; and I have been in an "S" Class submarine trying to avoid detection. I have also been in a carrier. I know perfectly well, and anybody who knows anything about this will agree, that Malta is an ideal training place in these respects.
I return to the question of married quarters. Close to a flat which I own in Malta are St. Andrew's Barracks. They are magnificent and quite modern. It is tragic to see them empty and, at the same time, realise that we do not have in this country the accommodation we require, particularly for married people. This is in a sterling area and will not cost a penny in foreign currency. I beseech the Government to think again about letting down our friends, because withdrawal of our troops has made a big difference to the economy in Malta. At present, there is one Shackleton squadron there. I hope that that will remain. However, I should like to see a build-up of troops in the island.
We rightly condemn the Government. They have cut by a very small amount—and in true terms I do not think that they have cut at all—expenditure on


defence. But what have they got? We have very little defence left. We do not have any good aircraft. The Government scrapped the TSR2. Many projects which would have kept us powerful and strong have been scrapped by the Government. We are not getting fair value for money.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I hope that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) will forgive me if I do not refer to all his points, in view of the lack of time. However, I should like to take up the statement about the east of Suez policy and the need to renew it. We still suffer from illusions of grandeur which we should get rid of. With, say, 40 divisions of Russians facing an even larger number of Chinese, we would hardly be noticed in the Far East. People who would notice us would be the people who did not want us there. It would be used as propaganda against our military strength and trade. We are suffering from years of unpopularity in East Asia. It would be a disaster for us to go back there.
We see a new trend in the Defence Estimates which shows a reduction of the percentage of the gross national product spent on armaments from 7 to 6 per cent., or possibly 6·25 per cent. if we remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in answer to Questions yesterday. This is sensible, because we are moving to what the economy can bear. It is a great mistake, shared by too many hon. Members, to assume that a nation's strength depends entirely on the number of men it has under arms.
There is great necessity for every country to have a strong industrial structure which enables it to renew, replenish and sustain a large military force. It is remarkable to note how often, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the strong industrial Powers have come out on top. If we destroy our economic roots and our industrial vitality by excessive defence expenditure we weaken ourselves.
After the self-congratulatory first page of the White Paper, I am surprised at the misleading statement on the gross national product in paragraph 8. I address this to the Front Bench as they may have an explanation. It reads as follows:
In terms of percentage of the Gross National Product, the defence spending of the

Warsaw Pact countries together is nearly twice that of the European members of N.A.T.O.…
Why has the word "European" been put in there? It is well known that the country with the biggest gross national product in the world is the United States of America. It is also well known that the United States of America spends a larger proportion of its income on armaments than any other country. If the word "European" were left out, the figures would be greatly changed; as they are, they are most misleading.
The second part of the sentence reads:
… it is 50 per cent. higher on a per capita basis.
Why has America been left out, if Russia is included on the other side? The Warsaw Pact countries and the N.A.T.O. countries are part of two world blocs—the chief problem in the world today. The total resources of each bloc should be included in considering the gross national product and the percentage spent on armaments.
In the second half of the sentence which I quoted from the White Paper, a dimension has been left out. If reference is made to heads of population, why should not reference be made to the territory which is covered? Why not say what is the percentage per square mile of territory, or per mile of frontier? That has always been an important dimension in considering military strategy and expenditure.
The motive behind military expenditure by Communist Powers is the same as our motive, it is fear. I do not know whether or not the two bellicose speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased that fear, but he scared the living daylight out of me. I will give way if the Front Bench will say why the United States was excluded from those figures, which have been referred to so often in the debate and which are so misleading.
Why have the figures been manipulated in this way? They seem to run contrary to the self-congratulatory statement on the first page of the White Paper, which speaks of the reduction in the percentage of the gross national product which we are spending on armaments. It is madness to do what my right hon. Friend did, to rattle a sabre and, at the same time, tell the enemy that one's sword is shorter than his. I cannot understand


the motive. It is certainly not to appease the Opposition; to be fair, my right hon. Friend never placates the Opposition. I hope that it is to persuade our N.A.T.O. allies who are not pulling their weight to increase the percentage of their contribution.
If so, I hope that it will be printed in all the languages necessary. I would like to see it printed especially in German, because I am still irked by the fact that we have not yet got a fair offset agreement. I know that there is a reference on page 49 to the fact that about 90 per cent. of the overseas currency element of our stationing costs has been recovered, but so little detail has been given that I wonder how the figure is made up.
The trade figures in respect of Germany for the last month have taken a big dive, whereas we have exported more to other countries. If that is a result of our offset agreement, it is not a very good one. I suspect that many of the goods that we would have sold anyway are included in it, but no details have been given, nor have they been available when asked for. I am certain, too, that part of the offset consists of credits. It is utterly disgraceful that we should become indebted in an offset agreement to a country which is fat with financialreserves when we are so very thin. It is disgraceful that we should be able to supply a market to German manufacturers of about 80,000 people on our pay. I do not think bringing back one brigade is a bad idea. I would like to see several brought back unless this offset agreement is settled satisfactorily.
We speak in much stronger terms when we are in opposition. Although I have not time now, I was hoping to read the statement of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was referring to the Defence White Paper of that year. It seemed to me, when I was cheering myself hoarse, that we should get a settlement in that year. We are still nowhere near it. I cannot imagine Britain being in Germany's situation. If Germany had been distributing military largesse to so many allies, I cannot imagine that we would refuse to help her, as we have expected help in this matter.
A lot has been said about the numbers of people needed in the Armed Forces. On this occasion, we are told that we

require 340,000 men. I have a sneaking suspicion that, when a Government are considering how many men they need in the forces, they look ahead to the following year, decide how many they will get, add that number to what they have already, and say that that is the number that they need.
If we are withdrawing forces from east of Suez to concentrate them in a central base here and so supply some of the home defence about which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have spoken, it occurs to me that it is possible to use them more efficiently, since lines are not stretched so far. In that case, I hope that the Ministry of Defence will take that into consideration.
Much has been said about quantity. However, I do not think that a single hon. Member has referred to quality, which applies not only to troops in active service but to the reserves as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) said recently that we had not any "brass-hats" on this side of the House to put up against those on the other side, so I hope that I shall be forgiven for quoting the views of a field marshal on numbers. I refer to Lord Montgomery, and I am reading from a speech of his in the other place in 1967.
The noble Lord said, in delightful language, at least in his later remarks:
… we need a small, very highly efficient Army of, say, 140,000, 150,000—that sort of figure—kept mostly in the United Kingdom. With a small highly-trained professional Army we ought to aim to reduce all unnecessary top hamper,"—
a wonderful nautical term for a field marshal—
a very heavy attack being launched on large staffs".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 869.]
I imagine that the field marshal would not be satisfied with the 3 per cent. reduction which has taken place in headquarters staff. However, we hope that this is just the beginning and that there will be a further reduction.
I think that the field marshal made the point that these troops should be well-equipped and efficient. When they are based in the home country, and are made mobile, they should be available readily to any part of Western Europe. If the Americans think it feasible and practicable to transport troops over 3,000 miles to the European sphere, we ought


to be able to manage to transport them 300 miles, if we have sufficient transport. I think that we should do that. Incidentally, from the economic and industrial point of view, it is a great advantage.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who objected to the agreement which the Defence Secretary has been trying to conclude with a number of European countries for the multipurpose aircraft. It is silly to refer to a single figure when so many planes are to be built by so many countries over so many years if we are to rely upon our own equipment and aeroplanes. It is also silly to talk about stopping importing American aircraft if we are not to build our own. This is absolutely essential, and the Defence Secretary is to be congratulated for going on with this matter.
It will be realised that international security and peace can come not only from armaments, but from a sensible foreign policy which is concerned about other countries, about the differences in wealth, and is determined to do right rather than what is expedient concerning our allies. Defence is the handmaiden of foreign policy, but no master should be too demanding on his servant.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: In view of the illness of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that I may have the leave of the House to speak again.
Whatever may be the differences between the Government and the Opposition and the divisions within the ranks of hon. Members opposite, I think that we can all agree that the speeches to which we have listened have been directed to making a contribution to a debate on issues which we would all be wise to recognise do not lie within the realm of dogmatic certainty.
Concerning future commitments and the the state of international affairs, we must all—I think even the Secretary of State, who is always so sure at the time of the wisdom of his fluctuating policies and strategies—to some extent be crystal-gazers.
As to modern weapons, the state of the art of attack and defence changes in a

way which means that final decisions can only be taken by those who have all the information—much of which must necessarily be secret. In this regard, I think that we must all be grateful to the Minister of Defence for Equipment for his speech last night. Within the restrictions imposed by security, he gave us information about the highlights in weapon development in each of the Services that we on this side of the House certainly found both helpful and informative. I think he has thereby ensured that the debates we have in detail on the Service Estimates will be carried on as constructively as possible.
We particularly welcomed also the assurance that he gave that no decision had been taken about the future of our aircraft carriers in the period after 1971. I think that great importance also attaches to what he said about the potentialities of the new super-Harrier, and the prospects of its use from ships as well as from land bases. We are also encouraged to know that the design studies for new ships will, as a matter of course, take account of these new developments.
Just as the Government have now accepted our view of the importance of our nuclear deterrent, so it seems they have accepted not only our arguments for changes in the naval strategy in the Mediterranean, but also our view of carriers and the future of naval aviation. It is perhaps rather ironic that within the space of two years Government policy has changed from scrapping carriers and staying east of Suez to keeping carriers and leaving east of Suez.
While we must welcome international co-operation and collaboration wherever it is feasible and sensible, we must never underrate the contribution which our military research and development programme makes, not only to our defence, but to our economy, and much of what has been done in our defence research establishments has proved of enormous value to British industry. Perhaps, therefore, when the Secretary of State replies he will make it clear that the proposed reduction of £30 million in our defence research and development programme is not just another part of his claim that cuts in defence expenditure must take place here as elsewhere.
We do not want needless dependence on imported equipment and weapons. This apart from the fact, which the Secretary of State did not seem to appreciate, that if they are financed on credit they are not in the Defence Budget, and may show a spurious cut in the current Estimates and throw the cost on to the future. And if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Written Answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th February of this year at c. 278 he will see that what my right hon. Friend said in opening is pertinent to this issue. Needless expenditure on imported equipment and weapons involves a double detriment to the country. It not only puts a strain on our balance of payments through additional imports, but in the long run it may involve lost exports, and that seems to be a sizeable matter when we see that the Defence Statement says that our defence exports are expected to reach over £170 million in 1969–70.
There were two matters which the Minister did not deal with last night, and which presumably he has left the Secretary of State to cover this evening. The first relates to reports that we are not to go ahead with the provision of another nuclear submarine depot ship. If this is true, we ought to be told how that is to be done without undermining the worldwide effectiveness of our nuclear Polaris submarine fleet.
The second matter is the progress in the provision of the nuclear powered Hunter/ Killer submarines. The Minister said that there were three in the fleet, and four under construction,
and we hope to order an eighth submarine shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 355.]
Perhaps we can be told that that hope is a certainty. It was the Prime Minister who, in January, 1968, announced a slowing down in the rate of new naval construction and said,
for example in the nuclear-powered Hunter/ Killer submarines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1583.]
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us the cost of speeding up the programme to its original planned rate.
This is an important issue, because the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy, 1967, said "From the middle 1970s the main striking power of the

Navy, apart from the Polaris submarines, will be provided by the growing force of Fleet submarines". As things stand, it would not appear that the main striking power of the Navy is to be very strong, and we would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us the eventual planned size of the force.
On the broad issues of strategy with which the Secretary of State dealt yesterday, I have been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, both yesterday and this afternoon, for saying that we were over-committed to N.A.T.O. in the sense that we are neglecting our interests in the rest of the world and home defence. If he reads what I said yesterday at columns 254 and 255, he will see that my meaning is perfectly clear. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for his helpful intervention and for putting this matter so clearly.

Mr. Healey: Am I right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts as desirable increases in N.A.T.O. which Her Majesty's Government have made in the last year? I understand that is what he means.

Mr. Rippon: I will say a little more about that later on.
Could the Secretary of State, in the same context, say something about our commitments through C.E.N.T.O. to Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, and how we are prepared to fulfil them? Could he indicate how the Government now feel we can exercise influence on the drift of events in the Middle East. Before he brushes our concerns aside, let me just read what he was saying as recently as April, 1967:
The Gulf is an area of such vital importance, not only to the economy of Western Europe as a whole but also to world peace. that it would be totally irresponsible for us to withdraw our forces from the area.
As far as east of Suez is concerned, the Minister of Defence for Administration maintained this afternoon that the Government case for our presence east of Suez only applied when confrontation was going on. That argument really does not bear examination for an instant.
What are the facts? The agreement to end confrontation was signed in Bangkok on 1st June, 1966. On 14th June the Prime Minister was asked in


this House, at column 1239, if the assurance of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Australians in Canberra in February of that year that Britain would remain a world military Power until 1980 or beyond remained Government policy. Our Prime Minister replied, in his characteristic crisp fashion, "Yes".
On the same day the Prime Minister addressed the Parliamentary Labour Party. He took then the unusual step of publishing the full text in The Times next morning. This was his way of avoiding what he described as "continual leaks". [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Where is he?"]e are not surprised at his absence. He is very reluctant to expose himself in this House on many occasions. He said then in quite impassioned defence of British presence east of Suez:
I believe that Britain through history, through geography and Commonwealth connection, has a vital contribution to make—I believe a socialist Britain has even more. Perhaps there are some members who would like to contract out and leave it to the Americans and Chinese, eyeball to eyeball, to face this thing out. The world is too small for that kind of attitude today. It is the surest prescription for a nuclear holocaust I could think of.
So it goes on for about four columns of The Times—splendid stuff. Having said that, with all the power of his office, is it any wonder that there is today nowhere in the world where anything that this Government says can receive the slightest degree of credibility?
Let the Secretary of State say why he used to think that outside Europe we had commitments which we must honour and that our presence made a substantial contribution to peacekeeping and stability and why these contributions no longer apply? Will he also say why he has come to the conclusion that we must no longer face what he called "the fact that the main danger of war today lies inside Europe and not outside it"? Will he also agree, as he used to do, that in meeting our various commitments throughout the world we have a claim upon our allies in Europe to the extent that we will be serving their interests as well as ours?
If, as I suspect, he will be unable to resist the temptation to cost Conservative policies in some extraordinary way, will he tell us what the current cost of

our operations east of Suez is, and will he ensure that he does not base his calculations on the assumption that anyone is proposing to keep 50,000 troops on the Malayan peninsula, as we did at the time of occupation?
In dealing with these issues, I hope that the Secretary of State will not try to give the impression, which he seemed to try to do when he interrupted me earlier, although I believe that he understood my explanation just now, that we on these benches in any way wish to diminish our contribution to N.A.T.O. and to Europe. We are arguing for him in the present situation not to go ahead with the planned cuts and reductions in forces and reserves. The Secretary of State is a late convert to the European cause, and he need not act as if he had discovered the continent himself.
Our case is that we cannot cut our forces and reserves to the point where we make a contribution to European defence at the expense of all our other commitments and considerations. We have advocated the action taken in the Mediterranean to protect the southern flank of N.A.T.O. in the face of the increase in Soviet naval strength. We have advocated that for some time, and I welcomed it in our last debate. That was largely a matter of redeployment. We welcomed also what was really the only substantial increase to our total forces, namely the decision to provide an extra 12 Harriers in 1971.
We recognise the need for this additional contribution to the strength of N.A.T.O., and it may be that we and our European allies will have to increase our conventional forces still further if we are to make a reality of this doctrine of flexible response. That is the issue. Will we be able to make a reality of this concept? We are agreed with the Secretary of State on the broad strategy of N.A.T.O.—our argument is about its implementation. As I said yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said today, it is playing with words to substitute the doctrine of the trip-wire for the doctrine of flexible response if at the end of the day, we still have only a few days before there is resort to nuclear weapons. The Minister of Defence for Administration said that the "trip-wire" meant only a few hours, but under the Government's and


N.A.T.O.'s new policy we were prevented from having a nuclear war for a few days. That was never so.
It was always part of the N.A.T.O. strategy and planning that there would be a period of days during which we could hold up the Soviet forces and see if agreement could be reached before using nuclear weapons. I am sure we all agree that we must not get bogged down, the Government or anyone else, in futile attempts to create divisions that do not exist. I listened, as I am sure the House did, with my usual interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Whether we agree with the substance or content of his speeches, he has a refreshing way of facing facts and realities and refusing, in spite of the schoolmasterly strictures of the Minister of Defence for Administration, to become bogged down in academic: phraseology whether about N.A.T.O. or the effect of demography and the "pill" on recruiting.
I am sure that in any general increase in conventional forces in Europe, which must be determined by the alliance as a whole, we are entitled to be given full weight for the contribution we are already making, bearing in mind the proportion of the gross national product which we are devoting to defence—which is higher than most countries in Western Europe—and also for the cost of our commitments elsewhere, which are part and parcel of the defence of European interests as a whole.
Much has been said about the likely future attitude of the U.S. to the part it plays in European defence, conventional as well as nuclear.
I do not believe for one moment that the United States will abandon their allies or any of their commitments or responsibilities. I do not see any danger under the present administration of President Nixon of a retreat into "fortress America", but I believe that we are living in a fool's paradise if we think that the Americans will for ever acquiesce in a situation in which they have more men in uniform than the whole of Western Europe combined, although we have a population half as great again as that of the United States.
Meanwhile, we must see that the Alliance makes it clear beyond a per

adventure to the Soviet Union that we intend to stand firm on Berlin as well as in relation to any attack upon Central Europe. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday of the signs that
the Russian empire in Eastern Europe is crumbling and we may expect further explosions like those we have already seen in the past in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Berlin.
In the short term, that may well increase our peril. The danger, as the Yorkshire Post said in its leader today, is that the Soviet Union may either be looking for trouble or unable to turn away from it. Therefore, we must make it clear that the doctrine of flexible response does not imply any weakening of Western resolve. It may be that we should be wise to talk in terms, not so much of a flexible response, but rather of a flexible strategy coupled with a firm response.
Turning now briefly to the question of home defence, the Secretary of State agreed yesterday that
in the event of an assault on central Europe. our ports, our airfields and our communications would be under heavy attack by bombing and even by paratroopers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 240–56.]
We had some discussion about the informal arrangements that are made for our defence with N.A.T.O. and SACEUR. No doubt these exist. In a matter so vital to the safety of our people, we think that we are entitled to know more about the general character of this contingency planning. Can we be told something, within the limits of security, of what is being arranged? Can the Secretary of State confirm the report in today's Daily Express by Mr. Chapman Pincher that there are moves to bring this matter up at the general review of the N.A.T.O. Treaty? Will the Secretary of State say if there is any truth in the statement that present contingency planning does not cover the situation entirely?
Quite apart from that, what we need to know is what protection will be afforded in the event of an attack by bombing or paratroopers, and what will be done to protect our defence installations on the ground. What troops will be available for that purpose? The Minister of Defence for Administration spoke about many things this afternoon, but he did not say much about this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for


Barnet said earlier, all we know is that some thousands of troops will be left behind for this purpose. We want to know how many and broadly how they will be organised. These are matters of corncern.
Will the Secretary of State confirm the fact, referred to again by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that our reserves are well below those of our N.A.T.O. allies? I think he can do that if he refers to Table 5 of the Institute of Strategic Studies' document "Military Balance 1968–69", which show our trained reservists and para-military forces as numbering 170,000—and they are falling. This compares with a figure of 475,000 for France, 780,000 for Germany, 705,000 for Italy, and 223,000 for the Netherlands. It may well be argued that ours will be more highly trained and effective in war. What the Government have done is to destroy completely the second line of reserves—those who would be capable of providing protection and aid in this country. The Secretary of State must tell us what is going to be done to aid the civilian population of Britain and to deal with the devastation that would follow a conventional attack, quite apart from the appalling consequences of a nuclear attack.
As I said yesterday, the Secretary of State has to deal with the present situation in the context of our pitifully inadequate reserves, the fact that the Territorial Army is now half the size that it was in 1964, and the fact that the Labour Government have taken what we regard as the wholly irresponsible decision to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis. How can the Government posibly take pride in the statement that our total expenditure on home defence is likely to fall to between £7 million and £8 million a year?
If the Secretary of State wants to do a costing exercise that has real meaning, would he say what it would cost to restore the home defences to the 1964 position? The Government take pride in the fact that the cost of our reserve forces, regular and volunteer, during 1969–70 will be only £22 million. What would it cost if we had reserve forces of the order we possessed in 1964?
We on these benches have never accepted, and we shall never accept, the Government's

view that the sole task of the Territorial Army, however it may be constituted, is simply to supply reinforcements for B.A.O.R. To restore the strength of our reserves and to provide the T.A. with a Civil Defence capability that can give aid and protection in the event of war to the civilian population of the nation is a Conservative commitment to which we give the highest priority.
We must all agree that frequent changes in defence policy are wasteful and disturbing. My hon. Friends and I will continue to make an attempt to establish a broad framework within which long-term planning can proceed without the fear that successive Governments will needlessly change plans or cancel projects for merely political purposes, which happened when the Labour Party came to power.
At the same time, experience has shown—we must accept this—that the rapid progress of scientific technology and fluctuations in the international situation make it difficult to foresee future military requirements with any certainty and that, consequently, there must be a good deal of flexibility.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friends and I fear that we must agree with the verdict of The Times leading article today, which said that the present Secretary of State's thinking would inspire more confidence if he avoided giving the impression that the future can only turn out his way. It has not happened that way before.
It is because we believe that the Government are not justified either in concentrating our total effort in Europe, regardless of all other considerations, or in cutting our forces and reserves that we shall press our Amendment to a Division.

9.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg leave to speak again.
This has been a valuable and wide-ranging debate, but I fear that I shall have to leave some of the questions which have been raised to be dealt with in the Service debates during the next two weeks. I wish to concentrate, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), on the major issues on which most speakers, both from the Front Benches and back benches, have spent their time.
An interesting feature of this debate is the fact that there is a good deal more agreement between the two sides of the House than has existed on any previous occasion since 1964. I hope that I do not embarrass the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham when I say that I much prefer his tone to that of some of his predecessors as Opposition defence spokesman. I very much appreciate his readiness to give the Government credit where he thinks it due.
Like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration, I particularly welcome his admission that, far from our forces being cut to the bone, we are the strongest European military Power. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday:
Apart from our contribution to the strategic nuclear deterrent and to B.A.O.R., the R.A.F. represents a large part of the strike power of N.A.T.O. and we also provide the strongest of the European navies."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT. 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 254.]
So it is not a feather in our scabbard, after all. It is a powerful sword.
I hope that there will be no more nonsense in future from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Labour Government destroying Britain's Armed Forces. I hope that they will use their influence with the Press to see that the truth is told in future, as it was by the right hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday on behalf, I trust, of the party for which he speaks.
I also welcome his support for the changes which we have introduced into N.A.T.O. strategy. In view of the views expressed last year in the House by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), it took courage for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say yesterday:
… I am sure that we must agree as a matter of strategy that it was right for N.A.T.O. to abandon the former trip-wire doctrine of immediate massive nuclear retaliation in favour of the concept of a flexible response based on a stronger conventional capability in Europe".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 252.]
I am glad, too, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman frankly admitted, and he repealed it tonight, that, nevertheless, N.A.T.O. cannot forgo reliance on nuclear escalation in face of a large-scale attack.
I agree that the impact of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was slightly weakened by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) this afternoon, in a charming and perfunctory speech, as usual. I have never known a man do so much housework with so little homework. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It was a little surprising. He did not even listen to what his right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday afternoon, when he was actually sitting by his side.
If we can agree on N.A.T.O. strategy and agree, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made very clear in his winding-up speech this evening, on Britain's contribution to N.A.T.O., this at least is something of great importance to our allies and our forces. If we can build on this area of agreement perhaps the day may come when our defence debates will be less distorted by party polemic and we can engage on an examination of the real problems.
We do this regularly when we meet outside the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman and I did it the other day at Munich and many do it in the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. I agree with everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said about that this afternoon. Her Majesty's Government fully support his view that the conference should be given official standing in N.A.T.O. Unfortunately, we have not yet persuaded all our colleagues on the N.A.T.O. Council to agree.
While there are these very important areas of agreement in the House there is still disagreement on N.A.T.O. strategy on the back benches on both sides of the House. Indeed, this brought the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) into a rare, if perhaps temporary, alliance with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). This disagreement is echoed in some national newspapers.
I think that neither the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire or my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East will be too offended if I say that their common position on N.A.T.O. strategy stems from a common failure to recognise that, as the right hon. and learned


Member for Hexham so rightly stressed, since the survival of the British people can be achieved only through N.A.T.O.—and our strategy must be a N.A.T.O. strategy—we must have a strategy which is acceptable to our N.A.T.O. allies, and, in particular, to those of our allies in the front line who are more exposed than we are.
The idea of The Times, for example, that we should cut our Regular forces in Germany to provide more reserves in the United Kingdom would be quite unacceptable to our allies as well as reducing the security of Europe as a whole. Here, I very much agree with what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) that we have learned as a result of the Czech affair and similar pressures that it is the presence of efficient and trained men on the ground that is the important factor from the point of view of deterrence.
The Government believe—here again I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's agreement with this view—that there is need for closer defence cooperation among the European members of N.A.T.O., particularly in view of the pressures on the American Administration, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) so perceptively described last night, but this makes it all the more necessary for us to achieve a thorough understanding of views and interests of our European allies.
Of course, they do not prefer the idea of nuclear war to the idea of prolonged conventional war, and I have never suggested that they did. The Times grossly distorted what I said on this as on other matters in its leader this morning. What our European allies do believe, and here I agree with them, is that N.A.T.O.'s present strategy—relying as it does on a mixture of conventional and nuclear weapons to pose a credible threat in face of attack—can prevent any war at all. They want to prevent war, not to fight one or even to win one; and so do I.
If N.A.T.O. abandoned its nuclear strategy and attempted, instead, to build a conventional defence, they believe that this would not be capable of preventing war, and that the consequences of war to them would be totally unacceptable

even if nuclear weapons were not used. For them—and they would be on the battle field—the results of a conventional war would be just as unacceptable as the results of a nuclear war. I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with them.
That is why the German Defence White Paper published a fortnight ago, the first the Germans have ever produced, stresses that the greater flexibility of response now aimed at by N.A.T.O. does not, and must not, bring into question the need for massive retaliation in the event of general war. Yet we must accept it as a fact, however much hon. Members may regret it—and I ask some of my hon. Friends to accept this—that if N.A.T.O. were to abandon its present strategy of deterrence, or if the allies lost confidence in that strategy, the result would not be to persuade the exposed European members of N.A.T.O. that they must increase their conventional forces. On the contrary, the result would be to stimulate irresistible pressures for national nuclear forces, not least in Germany, the most exposed country of all. After all, we have seen France set the example.
N.A.T.O. has always had a double purpose—not only to prevent war in Europe, which would lead to Armageddon, but also to provide a framework within which Germany can contribute to her own defence and that of Europe as a whole in ways which do not risk provoking the very attack they are designed to prevent. Those who want to destroy the integrated framework of N.A.T.O. and the agreed allied strategy it exists to implement, whether they live in Salford or Paris, or for that matter in Bute, risk producing a result which I know is exactly the opposite of what they intend.
I ask hon. Members to accept this for what I believe it to be—a fact, and to accept as a fact that countries in this position and with this attitude have the physical and political ability in 1969 to act on their views if we ever face them with this type of choice.
I would address a special word to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East if he were here this evening.

Mr. Phillip Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Healey: Perhaps I may finish this point.
My hon. Friend spent a good deal of his speech last night on a totally unjustified attack on our German friends and allies. I would remind him and those who share his views that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) said last night, German troops have been used only once since 1945 to invade a neighbouring country. They were the forces of Communist East Germany, and they were used to invade the territory of a Communist ally against its will.
Our West German allies, on the other hand, have integrated all their armed forces into the structure of the Atlantic Alliance. They have no troops whatever under purely national command. They are making a vital contribution to out security as well as to their own, and they have a right to expect that their allies should take their exposed position into account when the collective strategy of the alliance is formulated. It is as much our interest as our duty to see that their views are taken into account.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I just explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is on his way to Biafra and Nigeria?

Mr. Healey: I accept that, of course.
I am extremely pleased, as I know those in the Services will be, that this broad area of agreement about N.A.T.O. has emerged so clearly during the past two days. I am also relieved that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has succeeded in explaining what he meant when he said that we were over-committed to N.A.T.O. I accept everything he says.
The real argument between the parties is whether, on top of all we are paying for our security through N.A.T.O., we should pay a lot more to protect our interests overseas and for home defence. It is difficult to discuss this problem unless one knows how much more the Opposition propose to spend. They have made it clear that they think that what we are paying is inadequate. That presumes that they know what is adequate, but they have steadfastly resisted any invitation to tell us what they think would be adequate. However, they have said enough in the last two days to enable me to make a stab at defining what their policy is.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to tell him what was the cost of our forces now in the Far East and the Gulf—and I assume that this relates to the statements that he and other right hon. Members opposite have made during the last two days to the effect that they never had any intention of restoring the position as it was during confrontation, that they would have made some reduction after confrontation and, I presume, after leaving Aden, although they objected to that decision in any case. I will answer that question directly.
The answer is given in part in Annex H to the White Paper, which gives the foreign exchange cost. The foreign exchange cost alone of our forces this year in the Far East, excluding Hong Kong—that is, Singapore and Malaysia—is over £70 million. The foreign exchange cost alone of our forces in the Gulf is over £10 million. This is excluding our forces in Masirah and Gan, the cost of which is included in the figures in the White Paper.
Of course, this is just the foreign exchange cost, and it is broadly the case that the total cost in resources of forces stationed abroad—that is to say, including their equipment, training and support—is roughly three times as much as the foreign exchange cost. In other words, the broad cost of our forces in the Far East and the Gulf at the moment is something over £240 million a year.
But we can get at the Opposition's policy by another route. In a ringing peroration to his speech yesterday, which was cheered to the echo by his right hon. and hon. Friends, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and I am sure that they will cheer it again when I repeat it—
It is our judgment that the cuts which the Government have imposed—and those which are still to be made—are reducing our defences below the safety level and placing our national security and interests in peril."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1969; vol. 779, c. 264.]
Cheers? I notice a little caution now, and a very wise caution, because, if they think that the cuts we have made and are still to make axe placing us in peril, presumably they intend, and would wish us to make, no more cuts whatever; and on top of that to restore the cuts we have made. If that is not their intention, I do not quite see what that ringing peroration meant.
I will come in a moment to the problem of restoring cuts we have already made. Many hon. Members opposite suggest that we should not make any more and that, if they were elected to office tomorrow, they would stop the run-down of the forces. The cost of doing so was clearly indicated in last year's White Paper. The cost of the extra men and equipment whom the country will not need when the withdrawal from east of Suez is completed is £300 million a year. If right hon. Members opposite wish to come to the Ministry to look at the figures in detail, I would have not the slightest hesitation in showing them how they are made up.
If that is what Conservative policy is—and I see no means of interpreting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words, and, indeed, the whole posture of the Opposition, in any other way—then there is a real disagreement between us, a disagreement of great importance, and we can have a perfectly rational debate as to whether the gains we would get for this extra £300 million a year are worth the expenditure.

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very helpful explanation, up to a point. Would he say whether or not the foreign exchange costs to which he referred are gross and whether or not he has paid any attention to the footnote to Annex H and whether or not he is including the same troops in the £300 million as he has already included in the £240 million?

Mr. Healey: This is quite clear, I believe. These are figures which can be approached by either route. Whether one looks at the cost in resources of the men at present stationed in the Far East and the Gulf, which comes out at about £250 million; or at the cost of maintaining all the men whom we are planning to withdraw from the Far East and the Gulf, which is another way of coming at it and which comes out at £300 million; whichever way one looks at it, the policy of the hon. Members opposite, as they themselves have defined it—I shall come to other components in their policy—is between £250 million and £300 million. If either of the right hon. Gentlemen would like to sit down with me in the Ministry of Defence, we can agree together

on precisely which way they would like to calculate the figure.
But, of course, on this matter, the party opposite has steadily lost its candour. Indeed, the recent speeches of hon. Members opposite on this matter have been as shifty and as weasel-worded as their speeches on immigration and crime. They are deliberately intended to sound one way in Canberra and Singapore, another way in the House of Commons defence debates; and you can bet your bottom dollar that they will sound another way when we debate the need to cut taxes in the Budget——

Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we went back to the same number of civil servants that we had in 1964 we should then be able to afford the additional defence expenditure?

Mr. Healey: I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is totally unable to dispute my figures or meet my argument. Of course, the fact is that their presence east of Suez, to which the Leader of the Opposition committed himself the other day, is not really flesh and blood: it is ectoplasm—" Now you see it, now you don't." All that I would say to hon. Members opposite is that, if their speeches are honest, they are expensive, and if their speeches are dishonest they are contemptible——

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Secretary of States does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Healey: This £250 million to £300 million is only the beginning. This is without the fifth Polaris boat which the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised yesterday to produce. That would cost £55 million in capital expenditure and £4 million a year in running expenditure. It is without the increase in the hunter-killer programme which, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, would cost £30 million over 10 years.
It is without the increases in stocks and support facilities which he said yesterday that we were running down too fast; and it is without the home defence forces which he and his right hon. Friends said that we might need to deal with large-scale Soviet paratroop attack in the case


of general war—[Interruption.] No, let the right hon. Gentleman possess himself for a moment: he will find some interesting things to come.
If this were ever a real problem, this problem could only arise after the defeat of N.A.T.O. in Europe without the use of nuclear weapons. This is a thesis which we both reject. It could also arise only after the failure of N.A.T.O.'s air defence system, which covers the United Kingdom as I explained and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not dispute yesterday. But, of course, if N.A.T.O. had been wiped-out and the air defence of this country had been wiped out, the Russians could arrive by commercial airline. If we were seriously to plan for this contingency we would need all our Armed Forces permanently in the United Kingdom. This is what the Daily Express would like, but I do not think that it is what hon. Members opposite would like.
We believe that it is very much more sensible to prevent this contingency ever arising by preventing a war through our contribution to N.A.T.O. We believe that this is a problem which should be met on the Elbe and not on the Thames. Hon. Members opposite made a good deal of preparation for the unforeseen; but the unforeseen is infinite. If we sit down and try to imagine everything which could conceivably happen, there is no limit to what preparations we would make. But the important thing is that we should not prepare for the unforeseen at the expense of preparing for the seen. Preparing for contingencies which we can reasonably expect may arise is absolutely essential. Then we can leave a little bit over for the unforeseen.
We have heard no figures of expenditure from the Conservative Party in this debate, but we have given detailed figures both of our expenditure and of what the Opposition plan to do enshrined in the long-term costings which I found on my desk when I came to the Ministry of Defence. I am glad that now that I have published those costings in HANSARD they are not disputed by the Opposition as long-term costings. As the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said yesterday, long-term costings are the best estimate which could be made by the Ministry concerned of what its programme will cost over five years initially

and 10 years in the longer run. The right hon. Gentleman tried to get out of this difficulty by saying that the Opposition would not have spent it because they would have cut their programme as time went on.
But what would they have cut? Would they have cut the TSR2? Would they have cut the P1154? Would they have cut the 681? Would they have cut the carrier? Would they have cut £20 million on the Territorial Army and the reserve forces? Would they have cut the size of our forces? No. They have voted, on a three-line whip, against every reduction we have made in their programme. Either their opposition over the last four-and-a-half years has been totally dishonest, or the argument they are using today is totally dishonest.
The fact is that there are only two ways to cut a programme other than through better management—and I assume that right hon. and hon. Members opposite thought that their management was as good as it could be when they did the long-term costings. One way is to carry the programme out more slowly, and that is very much more expensive in the long run. The other way is to cancel equipment programmes and reduce the size of the forces, which means reducing commitments. It means taking very difficult painful policy decisions. We have taken those decisions on aircraft, on ships, on men and on equipment, and this is why we have achieved the savings.
Some of my hon. Friends say that we should go further than we have planned, although we shall reach, in 1972, 5 per cent. of our gross national product, the same as the European average, as I pointed out in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) the other day. But they say, at the same time, that we must stop relying on nuclear weapons for the defence of Europe. As I hope I have demonstrated to everybody's satisfaction, if that is the right word, it is quite impossible to get away from the need for nuclear escalation inside N.A.T.O. in case of a large-scale attack without having an enormous increase in conventional forces and without this country reintroducing conscription.
I have tried to argue during the last two days, and I hope that my argument


has at least been listened to, that their policy would wreck N.A.T.O., it would lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout Western Europe and it would make war infinitely more likely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, East, in his speech yesterday, made a good deal of the benefits which could be achieved by cutting defence. I ask him, and those who think like him, to recognise what social and economic benefits this country has gained over the last four-and-a-half years from the cuts in defence which have been introduced by this Government. Because we have saved £2,000 million in our first five years in office, education for the first time in our history is getting more money than defence in 1969–70. Because we have taken these difficult decisions because we have saved this money: expenditure on housing is up 31 per cent., on health is up 55 per cent., on education is up 56 per cent., on social security is up 68 per cent. and on overseas aid is up 19 per cent.
I am proud to have played a part in making these improvements and this change of priorities possible. I believe that this represents the sort of change in priorities which the Socialist Party is elected to carry out; but I warn my hon. Friends who agree with the Amendment on the Order Paper that once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.

I believe that the contribution we are making to the defence of Western Europe through N.A.T.O. is an indispensable condition for achieving all our social and economic aims. I also believe that it is an indispensable condition for achieving security—not by competition but by cooperation with those who are our political adversaries; and here again the two Front Benches agree that deterrence is the only basis for peace. For that reason I hope that those of my hon. Friends who signed the Amendment, reflecting on what I have said and on what they have heard during the last two days, will recognise that the policy of the Government achieves security for the British people, makes possible the achievement of our social and economic aims and deserves support in the Lobby tonight. I ask the House to approve the Government's Motion.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order at this moment, not even for the hon. Gentleman.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 310.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cordle, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Corfield, F. V.


Astor, John
Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brewis, John
Crouch, David


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crowder, F. P.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton?
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Dance, James


Batsford, Brian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dean, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Donnelly, Desmond


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Doughty, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. C.
Eden, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clegg, Walter
Emery, Peter


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Farr, John




Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fortescue, Tim
Lancaster Col. C. G.
Prior, J. M. L.


Foster, Sir John
Lane, David
Pym, Francis


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.)
Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, W. H.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Glyn, Sir Richard
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mac Arthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Robson Brown, Sir William


Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley
Royle, Anthony


Grant, Anthony Grant-Ferris, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grant-Ferris, R.




Gresham Cooke R.
McNair-Wilson. Patrick
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gurden, Harlod
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hall, John (wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Statinton, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast. N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Waddington, David


Hornby, Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherril, Bernard


Iremonger, r. L.
Nott, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley Marcus


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wright, Esmond


Kenyon, Clifford
Peel, John
Wylie, N. R.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John



Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Brookes, Edwin
Davidson, Arthur (Accnington)


Alldritt, Walter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Archer, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Delargy, Hugh


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Edmund


Barnett, Joel
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dempsey, James


Beaney, Alan
Carmichaet, Nell
Dewar, Donald


Bene, Cyril
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dickens, James


Binns, John
Chapman, Donald
Dobson, Ray


Bishop, E. S.
Coe, Denis
Doig, Peter


Blackburn, F.
Coleman, Donald
Driberg, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Albert
Cronin, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Boyden, James
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Eadie, Alex


Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam
Edelman, Maurice


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)







Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Ellis, John
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ennals, David
Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Evans, Joan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Finch, Harold
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Randall, Harry


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rankin, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus
Rees, Merlyn


Foley, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan
Richard, Ivor


Forrester, John
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fowler, Gerry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Gardner, Tony
McCann John
Roebuck, Roy


Garrett, W. E.
MacColl James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ginsburg, David
MacDermot, Niall
Rose, Paul


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowlands, E.


Gregory, Arnold
Mackenzie, AIasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Ryan, John


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackintosh, John P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dutwich)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius


Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Manuel, Archie
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Haseldine, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Henig, Stanley
Maxwell, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hobden, Dennis
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Horner, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tinn James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tuck, Raphael


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hoy, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stan
Wellbeloved, James


Hunter, Adam
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Hynd, John
Norwood, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn, Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur
Winnick, David


Jones, Dan (Burley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pardoe, John
Woof, Robert


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Judd, Frank
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Kenyon, Clifford

Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Main Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 232.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Alldritt, Walter
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Ashley, Jack
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnett, Joel
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Binns, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marquand, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boston, Terince
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boyden, James
Hamling, William
Maxwell, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Mayhew, Christopher


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brooks, Edwin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, Bob (N'c'te-upon-Tyne, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Molloy, William


Buchan, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Ht. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carmichael, Nell
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Jonn (Aberavon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Smalt Heath)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Chapman, Donald
Howie, W.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Murray, Albert


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric




O'Malley, Brian


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.


Cullen, Miss Alice
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Dr. Emest (Stretford)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pardoe, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunn, James A,
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dutnnett, Jack
Lee Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Randall, Harry


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lubbock, Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roebuck, Roy


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.




Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan (Swansea, w.)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skeffington, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weitzman, David



Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Well beloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taverne, Dick
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (P'ts'th, Langstone)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, Kernneth (Acton)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, W. H


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brewis, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monro, Hector


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hay, John
Murton, Oscar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Higging, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, J. E. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nott, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Onslow, Cranley


Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Osborne, John (Halam)


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osbome, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Iremonger, T. L.



Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Sir Fank (Clitheroe)


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox




Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Donnelly, Desmond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Langford-Hott, Sir John
Ridsdale, Rt. Hn. Julian







Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stodart, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Robson Brown, Sir William
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakt)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tilney, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wright, Esmond


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, N. R.


Silvester, Frederick
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'mington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Speed, Keith
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,


That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1969, contained in Command Paper No. 3927.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Horserace Betting Levy Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I have posted my selection of Amendments. If not, I should announce that there is one Government Amendment and I have selected it.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

ASSESSMENT TO LEVY OF INDIVIDUAL BOOKMAKERS

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
The effect of the Amendment would be to remove subsection (4), which was inserted in Committee against Government advice. The subsection applies when the Secretary of State has to determine a dispute between the bookmakers and the Horserace Betting Levy Board about a scheme for a levy period. It requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of horseracing, horse breeding and veterinary science, and also to the capacity of bookmakers to pay. Both these factors, the needs of horseracing and the capacity to pay, are expressly related by the subsection to the levy period in question.
The arguments for including the subsection were based broadly on two grounds—first, that the requirement to take into account a bookmaker's capacity to pay had formed part of the agreement with the bookmakers when the Levy Board was set up in 1961, that this secured their co-operation with the arrangements and, for that reason, should be regarded as an agreement that had been written into the Act; and,

second, that it provided an essential safeguard for the bookmakers. Discussion of this issue is central to the Bill.
As I hope to explain, there is not a wide gulf between the Government and the Opposition on the substance, but I hope that I can also convince the House that to leave the subsection in the Bill would not only serve no useful purpose, but would also be positively objectionable. I readily accept the contention of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the inclusion of this provision in 1961 constituted a recognition of the desire of the bookmakers for a safeguard and that recent events have not led the bookmakers to feel any diminution of their grounds for anxiety. What I hope to persuade the House is that this requirement never constituted the safeguard that it appeared, that the recent history of the levy demonstrates not the value but rather the harm of such a provision and that the supposed safeguard will no longer be relevant in the changed situation which will result from the Bill.
The determination of the levy for any particular period is, in the last resort, a simple matter of striking a balance between the needs of horseracing and the ability of bookmakers to pay. In passing, I would mention the fact that the capacity of the Totalisator Board to pay also has to be included in the balance. This factor was included in the 1961 legislation, but was omitted from this subsection, with consequences to which I shall refer in a moment. The operation is simple enough to describe; it is much more difficult to carry out, because both sides of the equation are variables.
The bookmakers' capacity to pay is at least subject to the limit of their maximum resources, though it is a matter for argument whether this should be taken to include capital or resources other than those deployed in their book-making activities. However, this question must be asked: what part of their resources is it within their capacity to pay? According to the strict, grammatical interpretation of the words, if they are allowed to retain no more than enough to maintain themselves and their families at subsistence level, then, strictly speaking, they are capable of paying the


remainder, after tax and duty, to the levy. That is the strict and proper interpretation of the Amendment which was carried in Committee and which we now seek to delete. That cannot be what the protagonists of the Amendment had in mind.
Interpreted in this way, it would clearly represent no safeguard whatever. All concerned would probably agree that the intention at which we are aiming is to determine not what bookmakers are capable of paying, but what it is reasonable for them to pay. Their view of this will often, if not always, differ from that of horseracing interests.
The other side of the balance, the needs of racing, is not subject to any precise limit. We are, therefore, faced with a situation in which it is a matter of determining a reasonable level of expenditure to match a reasonable level of levy. Moreover, one's view of reasonableness is likely to differ according to whether it is held by a bookmaker or somebody else concerned with racing. It may also vary from time to time.
Under the present law, bookmakers are required to prepare schemes for the Levy Board. If a scheme is approved by the Board, or if a bookmaker fails to submit one, a determination is arrived at by the chairman of the Board, assisted by two other independent members of the Board. It is in this situation that Statute requires the three members to consider and compare the three items of the needs of horseracing, and so on, the capacity of bookmakers to pay and the capacity of the Totalisator Board to pay. As I have mentioned, this requirement to consider and compare inter alia their capacity to pay is regarded by the bookmakers as an essential safeguard which they are not prepared to abandon.
I ask the House to consider the circumstances which have made the Bill necessary. During the early years of the levy the bookmakers did not seriously question the amount of the contribution sought from them. Eight levy periods have occurred since the passing of the 1961 Act and six levy schemes were made without demur. It was only with the seventh levy period, and, more particularly, with the eighth that, they challenged the amount and went so far as to

declare it illegal. If this was a good challenge, I cannot understand why the courts have not been asked to determine the issue. But this has not happened. Instead, it has proved necessary to introduce legislation to amend the arrangements because a complete deadlock was reached and a breakdown occurred.
I cannot believe that it can seriously be contended that a safeguard should be such that, when relied on, it brings about an impasse from which legislation is the only way out. In the view of the Government, therefore, not only is capacity to pay an imprecise, if not meaningless, criterion for the context; it is also one which has failed to operate properly as a safeguard on the first occasion when it has come to be relied on.
I pause to comment on the suggestion made in Committee that a capacity to pay is not an imprecise concept because it is one constantly used in the courts in fixing the amount of fines. The two contexts are quite different. What I have said about the possible meanings of "capacity to pay" disposes of this. I cannot believe that the bookmakers would be content that the only limit placed upon the levy was the consideration that they would not be required to pay the levy if their resources were such that they would not be required to pay a fine in similar circumstances.
We come back to the same point; "capacity to pay" can be given an objective meaning in the context of enforcement of criminal sanctions, but this is a very different meaning from the one which I have in mind where the issue is much more subjective. The Government have produced the Bill, which provides a quite different safeguard. Under the Bill the responsibility, in the event of a dispute in determining the amount of levy, has been transferred from the independent members of the Levy Board to the Secretary of State.

Sir David Renton: Only if there is a deadlock.

Mr. Morgan: I was mentioning this in the context of the deadlock which had occurred.
It had become clear that the independent members of the Levy Board, who must necessarily be closely associated


with claims of expenditure on horse-racing, had come to be seen by the bookmakers as insufficiently independent to exercise this determination. The same charge cannot be levelled against the Secretary of State, who will be completely independent in exercising this function. I stress that beyond all the argument and rhetoric we had on Second Reading and in Committee it is this transfer of responsibility which will provide the bookmakers with their real safeguard.
It has been asked why, when the Secretary of State is to exercise this judgment in a manner which is not only to be independent, but also seen to be independent, he should object to the words in the subsection which require him to act in the way that he will undoubtedly have to act. I assure the House that if there were not solid objections to these words, the Home Secretary would be content to accept the Amendment made in Committee. I also give the House this assurance. In exercising the functions conferred on him by the Bill, the Home Secretary will have regard to the capacity of the bookmakers to pay and also of the ability to pay of the Tote Board. At the same time, he will have regard to the needs of horse-racing.
I cannot see how the Home Secretary could carry out this function without having regard to these factors, but I am fully aware of the anxieties that have been expressed by the bookmakers and, for that reason, I give that considered assurance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We accept unreservedly the promise and pledge given by my hon. Friend, but he knows as well as I that, much as we would like the present Home Secretary to be in his job for all time, he cannot always be there. We cannot be sure that the pledge will be carried out by whoever holds the position in future. Why not write it into the Bill?

Mr. Morgan: If it were written into the Bill, it would be competent for a subsequent Home Secretary to introduce new legislation to change it again. I appreciate the anxieties expressed by bookmakers on this account, but it is not acceptable for these words to be written

into the Statute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The situation as it will be when the Bill becomes law will not be the same as the situation created by the Act of 1961. That Act set up in the three independent members of the Levy Board an independent tribunal and gave them guidelines for exercising their functions.
Events have shown those guidelines to be wholly illusory. The bookmakers' safeguard appeared to be the independence of the determining tribunal and the intention of the term "capacity to pay". The independence has been called into question, and the words "capacity to pay" have proved to have no objective content to which a further appeal can be made.
Therefore, the lesson we must learn from this is that in the peculiarly difficult situation of this adjudication we must rely on seeking objectivity in the adjudicator, and not in vague, woolly, imprecise criteria. Against this background, it would be wrong to suggest in the legislation that in exercising his new functions the Home Secretary would be governed by an external criterion which has proved only a source of disagreement, and which it has proved impossible to translate into a satisfactory and practical guide. To include this provision would be no more than to incorporate the illusion of a safeguard and to perpetuate the arid disputes which have led to the introduction of the Bill.
The bookmakers' guarantee is the Home Secretary's independence, and the assurance I have given that he will act impartially and have regard to what it is reasonable—and I maintain that that is the real criterion—that the bookmakers should pay. It is primarily for this reason that I ask the House to accept the Amendment.
In addition to this fundamental objection of principle, there are some technical objections to the Amendment made in Committee. First, the subsection fails to reproduce fully the provisions of the 1961 Act which are now being omitted, in that it makes no reference to the contributions to be made by the Totalisator Board. It is a relevant part of the calculation resulting in the determination of the levy to compare the contribution that can be made by the bookmakers and the Tote Board respectively.
The omission of the Tote Board would of itself make it impossible for the Home Secretary to carry out his functions properly. As I stressed in Committee, it is not a question of considering the capacity to pay in vacuo, but the capacity of the bookmakers to pay in relation to, and as compared with, the capacity of the Totalisator Board to pay.
If this were all that were wron? with the subsection it would not be difficult to amend it by including a reference to the Tote Board, but the wording of the subsection is significantly different from the wording of the original legislation in another respect. The latter required the independent members of the Board to consider and compare the three factors enumerated, and to make their own determination in the light of that consideration and comparison.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: Is not it a fact that before the Tote decides on its dividends it deducts the taxation and its contribution to the levy, so that it is never in a position where it is unable to pay?

Mr. Morgan: I think that I must accept the point the hon. Gentleman has made, but I am sure that if he reads carefully Section 27(5) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, he will see from the very way the three criteria are set out that it is obvious that they are to be considered in apposition one to another, and not just in isolation. I am not making any point over and beyond that.
Under the wording of the subsection introduced in Committee the Secretary of State appears to be required to have regard to the two factors mentioned to the exclusion of any other consideration which might be relevant. This is not acceptable, and I therefore invite the House to accept the Amendment, which will have the effect of deleting the Amendment made in Committee.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I have not heard such a weak case from the Government Front Bench for a long time. I do not know what the Under-Secretary of State is playing at. I wonder what we who were on the Committee were doing in considering the Bill line by line. The Government were defeated in Committee after a fair debate

but, instead of accepting defeat gracefully—something which the Government seem unable to do—they now use their Lobby fodder to get this objectionable Measure through.

The Amendment carried in Committee was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. John M. Temple), and there was a full discussion of it. It was a sensible Amendment. The 1961 Act was largely brought about because the bookmakers agreed to cooperate on the understanding that it would be written into the Act that they would not have to pay beyond their capacity. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), then at the Home Office, made this clear in the Standing Committee considering the Act when it was still a Bill, and it was never really denied. Now the Government are going back on the undertaking given to bookmakers then.

The Under-Secretary of State assured us on Second Reading that the Home Secretary would consider bookmakers' financial capacity in proposing any levy scheme. Why, then, are the Government seeking to delete the Amendment made in Committee? The Amendment was designed to remove an ambiguity, to make the situation clearly understood. Despite that Second Reading assurance, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the bookmakers are very concerned about this legislation. We have been told time and again that they have nothing to fear, but certainly the bookmakers, including those in my constituency, are still concerned, particularly about the removal of the Amendment carried in Committee.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I have tried to make it clear, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, that, whereas my right hon. Friend is willing to accept the spirit of that provision, he regards, as I regard, the wording of the Amendment as being so imprecise as to be incapable of proper definition. Furthermore, in any event he is not willing to confine his discretion to that element.

Mr. Montgomery: That will not do. If the hon. Gentleman does believe that, why not put the provision into satisfactory wording? That is surely the whole purpose of this exercise. The bookmakers


are not satisfied with the assurances they have had from the Government. The Levy Board says that they can pass on this charge to the punter. That means that the bookmaker must make a bigger deduction on any winning bets, which could mean the growth of illegal betting and the ruin of the smaller bookmaker.
The point has been made repeatedly that many small bookmakers are concerned about this, although the Under-Secretary of State shook his head in disagreement, I think, when I mentioned it on Second Reading. If the small bookmakers are driven out of business, and there is a growth of illegal betting, this will mean that the amount of turnover that takes place amongst registered bookmakers is likely to drop, with a consequent reduction in the amount of money accruing to the Board.
I ask the Government to think seriously about this again. If they are of the same option as those of us on this side, could they not bring forward a provision which would put this matter clearly into the Bill, thus ensuring that the bookmakers have their safeguard? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more forthcoming and will try to ensure that the safeguards the bookmakers are seeking are included in the Bill.

Mr. Brian Walden: From many points of view, this Amendment is unfortunate. It must have been apparent to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to everyone else who served on the Standing Committee that the majority of the Committee wanted the Bill but that they had doubts—mine were very strong—about Clause 1. However Clause 1 was phrased in its entirety—and that is not what we are now discussing—there are doubts, and hon. Members had sufficient doubts to make them change the nature of the Bill in Committee on the matter of capacity to pay. [interruption.] My hon. Friend interjects to ask how I voted. I voted with the minority, with the Government, upstairs, and I will explain why, and why the Government have been unwise to act in this way.
I accepted upstairs, and all along, one part of the argument my hon. Friend makes, but I hope to show him that he

is trying to have it both ways. I accept that part of his argument where he says that capacity to pay has never been construed in the courts and has no legal validity but might conceivably be much against the bookmakers' interests, and that therefore if they thought this was a safeguard they were mistaken, and it would therefore be unwise to have this provision in legislation.
All this seemed to me to be so, but there are strong arguments on the other side which my hon. Friend did not meet or mention. Bookmakers do think it a safeguard. They may be in error—people frequently are—in thinking that they have a safeguard, but it cannot be stressed too often that this legislation cannot work as it was originally intended to if one does not have the co-operation of the bookmakers. If they are put in a position where they feel they are being coerced, the situation will be unfortunate and the Government—not just this Government but any Government—will find that what was originally intended to work Will not work. One will not get bookmakers putting up acceptable proposals and there will be constant appeals to the Home Secretary. That cannot be the Government's objective. Their real objective is to cut the Gordian knot and to get the present levy scheme accepted.
Once the bookmakers are persuaded that they have no real safeguard and are being coerced and that unjust amounts are being taken from them, that will tend to be a permanent situation. That should be taken into account. Many things difficult to construe in legislation are believed to be guarantees which in the courts are found not to be so. but nevertheless the citizen and the interested group often cherish them, and my hon. Friend does not need to convince me of that. That is a point to which the Government should have had some regard.
If I accept my hon. Friend's arguments—and from so distinguished a lawyer I have no difficulty in doing that—about the legal worthlessness of the guarantee, it is difficult to see why the Government are so eager to remove it. Why brush aside the objections? If the objections were because this had been wrongly drafted, the Government could have put down the necessary technical


Amendment to tidy it up. They have not, and my hon. Friend was careful—as he always is—to say that this proposal was unacceptable to the Government. It is bound to stir suspicions if all we were doing was trying to put into the Bill a guarantee which bookmakers in their wisdom thought was of some value, whereas the Government in their wisdom strongly suspect that it is not. If the Home Secretary were a man of folly instead of a man of sense, he could use this to make the bookmakers' life intolerable and the Government would have said: "Let them have it". That would be the normal reaction. If the Government did not take that view there is bound to be some suspicion.
I make it clear that I accept the guarantees which were given by my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary's intentions are to be construed with regard to capacity to pay, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) should be borne in mind. I am tired of being told, not only on this Bill but on many others, that one Parliament cannot bind another and that one Home Secretary cannot make judgments which bind another Home Secretary. My hon. Friend's guarantees, though valuable, therefore, are, to say the least, limited.
Moreover, I am not wholly certain that we have heard the entire story. I do not suggest that anything which my hon. Friend said was untrue or was meant to be untrue, but I feel that much was not said. We are to go over to the principle of a turnover tax. That seems sensible. The Chairman of the Board wanted that change and, as so often, he is right. Previously it has been a tax on profit. I understand that the bookmakers were prepared to accept the principle of turnover, and if so they were wise, because a tax on profit is not satisfactory from the point of view of providing the revenue which is needed.
But a tax on profit has at least one advantage: the capacity to pay is fairly easy to construe. Any court can have some regard to the amount of profit which has been made and a judge can take into consideration what appears to be a reasonable amount which should be abstracted in levy. If it is said, as it has been said in the House, that bookmakers

sometimes conceal profits and do not always declare what they ought to declare. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue and for the courts, and in this context it is not a matter for the Government.
The situation in considering turnover is quite different. A bookmaker can easily have an extremely large turnover and a very small profit. I will not weary the House with examples, because I promised to be brief, but I could give several ways in which it is by no means unlikely that a bookmaker would have a very large turnover and a very small residual profit. That situation is well known to all the interested parties—bookmakers, Levy Board and, I suspect, the Government.
This, I suspect, is the unstated reason why the Government are reluctant to have reference to capacity to pay. They are reluctant, not because it might go to the courts and prove to be no guarantee, but because when it goes to the courts probing questions will be asked about how capacity to pay relates to a levy based on turnover. The Government understandably sees difficulties and complexities and wishes to be rid of them. I take the other view, because if what I suspect is, in fact, true, we may well be removing a genuine safeguard from the bookmakers which was contained in the original legislation and which was included to cover a number of aspects of hypothetical change within the Levy Board, one of which was not at the time, as far as I am aware, but might have been, a shift in the nature of the levy.
I bring these points to my hon. Friend's attention. Taking them into account and weighing them against the very fair points which he made, I think that the balance lies with the Amendment passed in Committee. The Government have been unwise to reopen the subject.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I cannot believe that the Under-Secretary of State can be anything other than convinced, if he would be prepared to be objective for a moment, by the arguments put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden).


The arguments put forward tonight by the Under-Secretary were no more convincing now than they were in Committee, and they have been weakened by all that has been said by those who have spoken.
I cannot see why subsection (4) of Clause 1 should be a stumbling block or a disadvantage to any reasonable levy scheme which might be determined by the Home Secretary. Equally, on the other hand, it provides a safeguard for the bookmakers. With the subsection in the Bill the bookmakers will continue to feel reasonably secure and they will continue to believe that they have an assured future, but without the subsection the bookmakers will, in my opinion, look forward each year with fearful anticipation to the announcement of the next levy scheme if it has to be determined by the Home Secretary.
It may be said that it will never be the intention to destroy the bookmakers as we now know them, because they are the geese which lay the golden eggs for racing. It may be claimed that it is not intended to create a Tote monopoly. Indeed, the Benson Report, racing's own report on the industry, said that although a Tote monopoly was feasible it was extremely unlikely that a situation could arise in which there could be a Tote monopoly for at least 10 years. Nevertheless, without the safeguard contained in the subsection, the bookmakers will have to live with the fear that they can be slowly bled into extinction. They will fear that a Tote monopoly can be created via the back door.
I do not deny the possibility that at some time in the future, whether it be 10 or 20 years ahead, it may be right and proper that there should be a Tote monopoly, but if there is to be a Tote monopoly let it be debated openly in the House of Commons and decided here. Do not let it occur by any backdoor method such as might result from the removal of subsection (4).
Therefore, I appeal again to the Under-Secretary to reconsider what he has said. To do so would be not only in the interests of the Government, but I believe that it would be in the interests of the bookmakers and of the whole racing industry.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) address the House on this matter, because he was challenged about what he did and he explained what he did. I want to explain not only what I did but my attitude to the Amendment and to the whole Bill.
It has been rightly said that the majority of the Standing Committee were in favour of the Bill. I was the odd man out, and I am still the odd man out. I am against the whole principle of the Bill because of the Amendment, which shows how unfair the whole position is. Only one member of the Standing Committee was against the Bill. After full, free and frank discussion, the Committee came to a decision. Incidentally, all the points now being discussed and debated, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, were put in Committee, and yet the Government lost the day.

Sir D. Renton: It is not true to say that the Under-Secretary deployed in Committee the elaborate case that he has deployed tonight. Many of the points that we have heard from him tonight were not put by him before.

Mr. Lewis: It is true that his explanation of the legal interpretation was additional. I was going on to say, however, that the general principle was put in Committee, including the fact, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has stated tonight, that the Home Secretary is not only in favour of giving the guarantee of the principle to pay, but has said that he means to observe it. I interjected to say that I had no doubts of the honesty and sincerity of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary. I believe what the Under-Secretary said on behalf of the Home Secretary, but the present Home Secretary will not always hold that office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham All Saints said, the interpretation of Acts of Parliament is difficult and sometimes has to be decided by the courts.
The Under-Secretary has made a declaration in the House on behalf of the Home Secretary, but two years hence if the present Home Secretary is no longer in office, will we then be able to say, "Yes, but in 1969, late at night, after


other important business had been discussed, an Under-Secretary said that this was then the Home Secretary's intention"? Whoever may be the Home Secretary then, whether on this side or on the other side, would say, "I am not responsible for what that Home Secretary said: I did not say it; I am implementing the Act."
If the Home Secretary is willing to give this guarantee, why is there a need for the Amendment? If the Under-Secretary is right that the Amendment carried in Committee was not drafted as well as it might have been, a properly worded Amendment could have been drawn up by those qualified to do so which could have been brought in either here or in another place. If, as the Under-Secretary says, the Home Secretary is willing to give this guarantee, why could it not have been incorporated in a suitably-worded Amendment?
I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the levy being on turnover rather than on profits. I am not here speaking for the bookmakers, although I am with them on this one issue.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) said that ultimately the punters will pay this levy. Thus the ordinary man or woman will be paying an additional tax with no opportunity of deciding how it is to be spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, is in favour of the Bill because it helps horseracing; so it does up to a point. But it also gives a very large tax-free subsidy to wealthy racehorse owners.—[Interruption.] It may be that hon. Members think this is out of order, but if the question of the capacity to pay is in order this must be in order, because if the money is not found then the Horserace Betting Levy Board will get no money, and without the money these huge tax-free prizes could not be given. It is all tied up with the question of capacity to pay.
Going through the record, I have been amazed at the number of right hon. and hon. Members who raised this very point when they were not in Government. The present Minister of Public Building and Works was described by Mr. R. A. Butler, then the Home Secretary, as the champion of the bookmakers. The then Home Secretary agreed that it was not right to

take this money officially from the bookmakers unless some consideration was given to the question of capacity to pay. A former Deputy Speaker also spoke then in similar vein——

Mr. Montgomery: And the Leader of the House.

Mr. Lewis: The present Leader of the House, the present Foreign Secretary and the present Lord Chancellor all spoke in favour of this idea. So did the present Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Stonham. Lord Stonham is on record as saying of the bookmaker:
He is almost always at risk because he is rarely able to lay against the whole field, and hardly ever able to make his book so that, like the Tote, he is certain of a profit, whichever horse wins. His profits are frequently in inverse ratio to his turnover, because his turnover is always bigger when his customers are enjoying a winning run and are therefore reinvesting. In a year of bigger turnover a bookmaker often makes less profit than in a year of small turnover."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 28th February, 1961; Vol. 229. c. 18.]
I could quote others—there is a whole list of them.
I have never heard any logical reason given for introducing this Amendment now. If the Home Secretary is in favour of this principle, perhaps I may be given an assurance that provision will be made in another place. If I were to get that assurance, I would not even oppose the Third Reading.

Sir D. Renton: It is not unknown for Governments to reverse decisions of Standing Committees, but it is not usual for them to do so unless there are very good and strong reasons for it. We have not been given any such reasons in this present case. If good and strong reasons are not given for disagreement with Standing Committees, there is the risk that members of Standing Committees may feel that their time and effort are being wasted, and it really makes Standing Committee procedure into somewhat of a mockery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) quite rightly pointed out.
As for the reasons put forward by the Government in support of their attitude that when the Home Secretary has to decide these matters he should not need to have regard to the needs of horse-racing and the capacity of bookmakers


to pay, the Under-Secretary has at each stage shifted his ground. On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman said that among the things that would have to be taken into account, besides the ability of the bookmakers to pay and the needs of horseracing would be all manner of other considerations—the financial policies of the Government and wider social considerations.

11.15 p.m.

In Standing Committee we criticised this attitude, and I said:
''I can imagine nothing more calculated to destroy confidence in the Government's intentions than the thought that this levy scheme might depend upon the general financial policies of the Government and wider social considerations instead of the only two things that are relevant …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th February, 1969; c. 117.]
I went on to mention those two factors.

In Committee, the hon. Gentleman, wisely and not surprisingly, made no attempt to justify what he had said on Second Reading. Indeed, by implication he abandoned it altogether. Instead he used the argument that although it was right that the Levy Board, especially the "three wise men", should have to have regard to these factors under the 1961 Act, the Home Secretary should not in future, as he put it, be "cabin'd, cribb'd., confin'd." in this way. The hon. Gentleman claimed that by bringing in a Minister of the Crown in place of the three wise men a totally new situation had been created which did "not call for guidance".

Tonight he tries to justify the Government's extraordinary behaviour by a number of elaborately deployed but hair-splitting arguments. It would take a long time to deal with all of them in detail, but I think that I should mention what appeared to me to be the climax of his speech when he said the question that the Home Secretary would have to decide would be not what the bookmakers were capable of paying, but what it was reasonable for them to pay in the light of their resources. Therefore, we have to infer that it may be considered reasonable by the Home Secretary to ask them to pay beyond their capacity, and yet in the next sentence or so of his speech the hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that that would not be done.

It leaves us in a most extraordinary position. It is unreasonable in any circumstances to ask bookmakers to pay beyond their capacity whether it has been decided in the courts or is ever likely to be.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I never suggested that any Home Secretary would ever seek to make the bookmakers pay beyond their capacity. What I said was that if the words had to be interpreted by a court strictly in accordance with their grammatical meaning, it would be logical for the court to come to that conclusion, which is rather different.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman dishonours the judicial branch of our profession if that is his view. How can it be considered to be reasonable to ask people in these circumstances to pay beyond their capacity to pay?
However, I shall not split hairs with the hon. Gentleman, because I want to come to what I think is the more important aspect which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who made such valuable contributions to the Committee's debates. As he rightly said, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), everybody agreed that the Bill was needed, although most of us had doubts of one kind or another about Clause 1. I was one who had to try to persuade the bookies in 1960–61 that it was right that Parliament should call upon them to make compulsory contributions—and let us not forget that they were compulsory contributions—for the first time by Statute for the benefit of horseracing.
I say that the Government are making a great mistake in going back on what was clearly the understanding of Parliament and of the bookmakers at the time that that legislation was passed. I cannot understand why the Government have been so obstinate about this. So far tonight there has not been one speech in the hon. Gentleman's favour. If the betting levy schemes are to work effectively in future so that racing benefits, it is essential, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), to retain the confidence of the bookies, whether we support them or not against the Tote.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints has said—and nobody can deny this—the bookies regard the insertion in the Bill of these words which are in dispute tonight as a safeguard. But the confidence of the bookies will be badly shaken if the Home Secretary, when approving those schemes referred to him after disagreement between the three wise men and the bookmakers, can make his decision without any guiding principles at all being laid down by Parliament.
The Home Secretary—I do not say this Home Secretary, because we have had an assurance tonight—will be free in law to make an impost which would require the bookies to pay beyond their capacity. That would be wrong, unfair, and a breach of the undertaking expressly written into the 1961 Act, but now to be repealed by the Government. This is utterly deplorable, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Government on this matter unless the hon. Gentleman, having heard the very strong words used on both sides of the House, will take the responsibility upon himself of saying that the Government are prepared to have second thoughts about it.
If the Minister wants it tidied up, it can be dealt with in another place. There were particular technical reasons for not making the Tote Board subject to this provision on this occasion. I will not weary the House with those technical reasons, but it was not through any prejudice against the Tote Board or in favour of the bookies. There were sound technical reasons. But if the Government feel that that should be done, let it be done in another place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the responsibility upon himself tonight of having these second thoughts. Otherwise, I suggest that we divide.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: rose—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order. Is there to be no opportunity for those hon. Members who happen to be in support to give an expression of view in the light of what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I understood the Minister to rise. It is the normal practice of the House to call the Minister if he rises. But if the Minister wishes to give way, perhaps those Members who wish to speak would indicate their desire to do so.

Mr. Roebuck: I think that the bladder of nonsense which has been inflated by hon. Members who have spoken so far can be punctured swiftly.
First, I will deal with the argument that somehow or other the proceedings on which we are engaged tonight are undemocratic. This view was put forward by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), who got so excited I feared lest he should go into orbit on the matter.
But what are the facts? The hon. Gentleman maintains that somehow or other the Standing Committee was persuaded by the great oratory coming from himself and other hon. Members opposite to turn this matter aside and not go along with the Bill as it was. The facts are somewhat different. The vote went that way because two hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee happened to be out of the room at the time the vote was taken. It is as simple as that—[Interruption.] I hardly think, therefore, that it can be maintained that we are engaged on an undemocratic procedure in considering it again.
That point of view was put somewhat more lucidly, but even more nonsensically, by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. If the House of Commons should not reconsider these matters on Report, I should like to know why we have Report stage at all If one were to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion, one might suggest that Bills went from Second Reading to Standing Committee and then straight to Royal Assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the procedure of the House but the Amendment.

Mr. Roebuck: That is so, but I am, with respect, replying to certain arguments which were put forward.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed certain hon. Members to make incidental references to what happened in Committee. I do not think that the point should be pursued at length.

Mr. Roebuck: I have no desire to pursue the point at length. As I think I said, it is a point which does not need to be pursued at length; and, having made it, I trust with some degree of effectiveness, I shall leave it.
The other issue is whether we are in some way being unfair to bookmakers. I dissent strongly from that view, because it seems to me that the whole object of the Bill is to give them more protection. The position will be that instead of bookmakers going to some body which is not responsible to Parliament, we shall be responsible. Therefore, the Home Secretary can be questioned in the House and be subjected to various other restraints and disciplines which hon. Members can put on him. I think that the arguments which have been advanced on this issue by some hon. Gentlemen opposite and by two of my hon. Friends, one of whom has had a blinding conversion on the matter since we met in Standing Committee, fall to the ground. I do not underestimate the strength of the House of Commons in dealing with matters such as this both on the Floor of the House and in private representations.
Nor is it true, from my study of a journal called Sporting Life, which is a new journal to me, to say that all bookmakers are opposed to this Measure. Indeed, there appears to be a division of opinion, and many bookmakers appear to be in favour of it, so that is another false point.
Those bookmakers whom I have met since becoming engaged on this Measure have impressed me greatly. The bookmaker has always been part of the Nonconformist demonology. He has always been regarded as a somewhat horrible man, but those whom I have met while on the Committee have changed my view. I find them much pleasanter characters than those other gamblers, the stockbrokers. Why it should be thought that stockbrokers are fit for decent society while bookmakers are not, I do not know.
I find none of the arguments which have been put forward, apart from that

of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, at all convincing, and I shall support my hon. Friend if hon. Gentlemen opposite are foolish enough to divide the House.

Mr. William Hamling: The House has every right to disagree with what Standing Committees say, and I am sure that no one would deny the right of the House—[Interruption.]—I shall tell the hon. Gentleman privately where I was when a certain vote took place. I was not in the Crypt.

Sir D. Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that absenting oneself from a Committee room when there is about to be a Division is one of the best ways of crypto abstention?

Mr. Hamling: One is sometimes misinformed by the Whip about when a certain vote will take place. We have one or two outstanding examples of that with us tonight.
I have made the point that the House is within its competence in disagreeing with a Standing Committee. After all, a Standing Committee represents only a small section of opinion. I am glad to see the Opposition Chief Whip agreeing with me for once.

11.30 p.m.

The second point is the material one. The whole purpose of the levy is to produce revenue. No Government and no Home Secretary and no chairman of a levy board would accept a position where the Board's revenue would decrease because of some bias or act against bookmakers. It is bookmakers' income which provides the Board's income. I do not know what all the fuss is about. It is in the Board's interests that bookmakers' income should increase. This industry does not exist for the benefit of bookmakers. It exists for the benefit of people who take a joy in horseracing. This is not a charter for the bookmakers. It is a charter for people who attend race meetings. My view of the Board's operation is that it is the Board's purpose to maximise the revenue and make racing attractive to the public. The subsection is irrelevant to the basic purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not wish to incur your displeasure by dwelling for too long on the constitutional question of how far


the House on Report is entitled to reverse a decision taken in Standing Committee. Since this question has been made one of the main arguments of those who oppose the Amendment, it is right that I should refer briefly to it.
It is alleged in a letter which was circularised to right hon. and hon. Members yesterday that the very fact of this Amendment being moved is contrary to the democratic decision of the Standing Committee. The vote was lost 9 to 8 in Committee. The Committee consisted of 20 Members. It was, therefore, only a minority of the Committee that reached that decision. Even if a Committee reached a decision by an overwhelming majority, I maintain that it is right for the House on Report—it is, indeed, a necessary function of the House—to take that into account and, if it wishes to reach a different conclusion, it is entitled to do so.

Mr. Kitson: Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that, unless he gets 50 per cent. of the House with him in the Lobby tonight, he will not have a democratic majority?

Mr. Morgan: I am not suggesting that. I want to disabuse hon. Members of the misconception that the Amendment was carried in Committee by an overwhelming majority. I do not want to go into the detail of that occasion and explain exactly how it happened. It might not be the most edifying record to give to the House. All that can be said of the Committee's decision is that the best argument on that occasion appeared to be a majority. I believe that there is only one way of refuting that argument. I trust that we shall be able to do that before long.
The old broken-winded nag of illegal betting has been trotted out again this evening. I repeat what I said in Committee. If hon. Members have concrete evidence of this and would tender it discreetly, the Home Office would be grateful. But no evidence has been produced——

Mr. Montgomery: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the tax on the bookmaker is increased there is a danger of illegal betting at least in the industrial areas?

Mr. Morgan: It has been put to us that illegal betting would occur mainly because small bookmakers would be driven out of business. But, on the whole, the small bookmakers welcome the Bill, and they face an imposte which is lighter than under previous schemes. Even if they did not welcome it, there is every logical reason why they should.
With his usual skill, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) argued that, while half of what I had said in favour of including the capacity to pay and the needs of horseracing was reasonable, I had failed to deal with the other point. This is not just a question of drafting difficulty, but it would be difficult to put the principles described by hon. Gentlemen into legal form. There are other difficulties.
The greatest is the difficulty of securing finality when deciding on a levy for any particular period. If these criteria were put into the Bill, litigation, and even vexatious litigation, would be possible. I am sure that the actions of the present and future Home Secretaries would be well within the bounds of the Bill. Nevertheless, if such a legal process took place within a levy period, for a month or two or three, there would still be a remote and lingering doubt about whether or not the Home Secretary had the right to make such a scheme. It is that very doubt which would create the maximum damage.
I have given a solemn undertaking on behalf of the Home Secretary. I appreciate its limitations. It is binding only in a political context, but even if it were written into the Bill, it would not bind any subsequent Parliament. I take the point that, perhaps for eight years or more, bookmakers thought that this guarantee was valid, but, now, after the most detailed and microscopic examination, there can no longer be any doubts on that question and it would be wrong to reproduce, even broadly, the words of the 1961 and 1963 Acts in the Bill.
It is a somewhat unusual constitutional doctrine that legislation should proceed on the assumption that a Minister of the Crown is the only person to be entrusted with adjudication and, at the same time, to assume that subsequent holders of the office cannot be entrusted to have the integrity to be impartial in that situation.
I do not accept the indictment of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that I have changed my ground. If he will study in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said on this subject he will note that on Second Reading, before coming to the question of the necessity to bring in wider considerations than those mentioned in Section 27 of the 1963 Act, I dealt with the point that we were here dealing win a different situation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman paid me the compliment of ranging wider

tonight than we did in the debate in Committee. He may regard that as a justification for raising the matter yet again. However, I ask the House to consider that the machinery we are creating will operate well, that it is a just system and that it will give finality and certainty to any levy scheme. That being so, I invite hon. Members to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 108.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[11.41 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy
O'Malley, Brian


Brooks, Edwin
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Buchan, Norman
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, James
Pardoe, John


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Bar nett
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Fratas, Rt. Hn. sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Roebuck, Roy


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul


Dobson, Ray
Lever, L. M. (Ardwlck)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E.


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, loan L. (Birm'ham, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Maxwell, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelsen, J. J.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce



Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Concannon and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Glover, Sir Douglas


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhart, Philip


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.
Gresham Cooke, R.




Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Silvester, Frederick


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jopling, Michael
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Waddington, David


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Lane, David
Pounder, Rafton
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wylie, N. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Younger, Hn. George


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Maginnis John E.
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: For the benefit of hon. Members, may I say that I do not think that there is any hon. Member on this side of the House who will support me in calling for a vote. I wish there were, but those hon. Members who wish to catch a train can do so. I am afraid that I shall be the only one who will vote, so they can leave without any fear.
As I have said throughout the passage of the Bill, I am very much against it. On Third Reading, one can debate only what is in a Bill and not what one would like to see in it but has been left out. I shall therefore explain why I think that it is a bad Bill, together with all that it contains. Ostensibly it levies money from bookmakers, but in reality it does it from those who bet on horses. The Horserace Betting Levy Board will then have the opportunity, in conjunction with the bookmakers, to draw up a scheme involving an unspecified sum, rumoured to be between £1 million and £3 million. No one will let the cat out of the bag, but I have seen statements attributed to various people giving various sums. This levy will be used for what is called encouraging the sport of horseracing.
I am not against its encouragement, but if it needs to be done let it be done by those who want to go to horseracing and are participating. I gave figures on Second Reading, which are material now, showing that even under the old levy a number of very rich Surtax payers were receiving as much as £97,000 a year tax

free from the old levy. An hon. Member interjected that it did not matter, because some of them were Americans. From my point of view, it makes it even worse for us to be here at midnight discussing how and why the levy should be instituted to give thousands of pounds of untaxed money to very wealthy Surtax payers when some of them happen to be American or from some other overseas country.
I am not against money being used for the encouragement of sport in general, but I cannot see why horseracing should be singled out, as the Bill provides. Why should money be levied from the punters, because that is where it comes from ultimately, to enable the trainers to draw fabulous sums——

Mr. Hamling: Not fabulous.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend can make his speech later. There is plenty of time.
During the Committee stage, a trainer called Sir Jack Jarvis died leaving £250,000—a fabulous amount, to me at any rate. Another trainer who died earlier left £150,000, which again is no small figure. I travel past Newmarket—I have never been to the track—and see, as one sees in other racecourse areas, great houses and training establishments, all of which get subsidies ostensibly for training horses. They also get their houses out of this levy.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: No.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend may not like it, but it is true, although it is also true that a small part goes to veterinary science.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. Does not he accept that, out of the £17 million collected in total under the seven preceding schemes, £4·3 million has been expended on the improvement of racecourses? That is the biggest item of expenditure.

Mr. Lewis: But £4·3 million out of £17 million is not the largest proportion.

Mr. Hamling: It is a lot of money.

Mr. Lewis: We must differ. I do not think that it is out of the £17 million.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will give way in a moment. My hon. Friend must not blame me if we go on late. I must not be blamed. After deducting £4·3 million there is still £13 million left.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It might save time if I remind my hon. Friend that £4·3 million was spent on the improvement of racecourses and about £3·8 million in prize money.

Mr. Lewis: I am obliged. My hon. Friend has made my case. Almost as much has been given to wealthy racehorse owners as to the improvement of racecourses.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Oh.

Mr. Lewis: It is no good my hon. Friend saying, "Oh." The amount distributed to wealthy owners is almost equal to the amount used to improve amenities. These are my hon. Friend's own figures. I cannot for the life of me see that this is proper.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: £9 million?

Mr. Lewis: I do not see why these wealthy racehorse owners should receive such a sum, be they Lord Wigg or anyone else. Lord Wigg is a racehorse owner. He took on his job at £4,000 a year but then got £4,800—an extra 20 per cent. before he started. He is a racehorse owner. [Interruption.] This may be unpalatable, but the fact is that this scheme is supposed to help the poor racehorse owners. Lord Wigg's salary went up to £6,000 within 12 months.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Order.

Mr. Lewis: What is my hon. Friend calling "Order" for? What has he to do with it? He is helping me make my speech. I say that one of the beneficiaries of the Bill will be a man who within 12 months has had a £1,200 increase in his salary. He is now getting £6,000 instead of £4,000 when he first took the job on. I do not think that that sort of man should be deserving of or in need of extra money on top a 50 per cent. increase in salary.
On Monday we discussed "In Place of Strife". This sort of proposal helps to encourage strife. The very wealthy, in addition to large salaries and being able to afford to run their own racehorses, are to get subsidies. It does not help us when we tell the workers on £10, £12 or £14 a week that the Government have their priorities right.
If this levy Bill were to say that part of this money was to be used to encourage all sports, whether it be running, swimming, athletics, boxing, football or the lot, I would say that it was fair, but I cannot see why horseracing should be singled out for preferential treatment. No one has given me a logical reason.

Mr. Hamling: They have.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend may think they have, but I do not. I cannot see why this sport of kings should have this kind of money pumped into it. I know it was suggested that if it were not it would collapse, but the same could be said of football, cricket and other sports. I cannot see that this is a good Bill, or why the Government should give it priority above other measures which are far more important and urgent than this measure.
As I am keeping a few hon. Members here, I am hoping that one may support me so that we may have a vote, because I think the Government should spend time and energy in getting through measures of general import to the general public rather than this Bill. I have spoken against the Bill and I will vote against it.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like to say a few words at this stage because I did not serve on the Standing Committee. I did not realise that hon. Gentlemen were so anxious to


serve that there was a veritable queue and that within 24 hours of Second Reading the decision had been made who were to be Members of the Committee. I was left out because I had not spoken on Second Reading. It was not my deliberate intention not to take part at an earlier stage.
I will shortly have a direct interest in the matters about which we are speaking because I shall be concerned in the operation of a society which will aim at the betterment of racing and which will not be a non-profit making organisation. I should say that at the outset.
While I have had some misgivings about some features of the Bill, nonetheless I favour the Measure in that I believe that all sport requires assistance at present in one way or another. I point out to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that it is the intention of both parties gradually but progressively to give more assistance to sport in this country.
I have consistently pointed out that our very pleasant Minister of Sport has a most engaging character but is given no executive authority, and it might assist if future Ministers for sport or amenity were given more assistance by coming under the umbrella of the Board of Trade. This Bill does not come under the Board of Trade. It might have. I am not altogether happy, and I am not sure that those who support the measure are altogether happy, at imposing a further duty on the Home Secretary. We would rather have left the matter in the good care of racing and the Levy Board without outside or Ministerial assistance. I recognise the difficulties that have arisen. We know that from time to time some bookmakers have difficulties in their approach to taxation and levies.
The Bill seeks to bring about the better administration of the money which is raised as well as a system whereby it can be more easily obtained. The levy is intended to produce over £3 million in a year. The amount produced over the previous seven years was £17 million. I recognise the finely balanced arguments to the contrary, but if I had administered the money from the outset I should have concentrated on the amenities instead of increasing the prize money. At the same time, I know that it is contended that the prize money in this country is low in

comparison with that in France and the United States.
But the worst feature of racing is that people do not attend race meetings. They watch racing on television or go into betting offices. I was closely concerned with the legislation which introduced betting offices, and I had no intention—nor did I think for a moment that the legislation would have that effect—of permitting the blower to be used in betting offices so that bets could be laid freely while racing was taking place. Indeed, I subsequently advised that the Bill did not achieve that.
If we were able to get many more people to attend race meetings we should be able to provide much more money for those who engaged in racing. The amount charged to the individual who attends race meetings is high, even though years ago we abolished the tax on racing. We are not getting people to attend at racecourses. I greatly hope that the Levy Board and others who serve the interests of racing will restrict the expenditure of money on increased prizes at this stage and seek to spend money on improving the amenities on our courses.
We wish to bring many people to the racecourses, not only from this country but from overseas, but if those people arrived here many of our racecourses could not cope with them. The British Travel Association has done excellent work in bringing large numbers of theatre-goers from the United States for a special fortnight in this country. The Americans can do it cheaply because the price which they pay for a theatre ticket is about one-third of the price in the United States. It is hoped that we can increase the number visiting this country from overseas who are interested in racing, but that will require much better race tracks, and it will even need attention to the turf which on some racecourses which are used regularly is not good enough to stand up to the wear and tear of the future without substantial improvement.
There are the questions of the carriage of racehorses and of air-landing strips close to the racecourses. It seems to me that it is in this direction that the money which lies at the background of the Measure tonight should be divided


extremely carefully. It is important to recognise that only in the last resort should the Home Secretary interfere in the scheme by the exercise of the powers which he is being given. It is really a question of giving him deterrent powers that he can use if success cannot be obtained otherwise, and really no more than that.
I do not believe that anybody connected with racing, whether in the Jockey Club or those who operate the Levy Board, those concerned with veterinary science or racecourses, owners, trainers or anybody else, wants Government interference. They hope to see a situation in which they get the co-operation of everybody within the industry and the recognition that a great deal of money is needed to secure the benefits of those who go racing. They want also to get a little more interest in the Government to ensure that there is a greater understanding of the need to have a good look at our taxation, too, to see that encouragement is given to those who participate in the sport rather than those who merely want to watch it and not pay their fair share towards it.
Therefore, I have said these few things because I felt that they might take the debate away a little bit from the very narrow issues which, quite rightly, it has been constrained to pursue hitherto, both in Committee and elsewhere. I hope that now that the Bill goes through, everybody will look forward to the forthcoming season in a spirit of trying to work together in an all-party sense to do something to promote this sport, which is lucky, perhaps, to be the first sport to get a measure of assistance but which, I hope, will be by no means the last sport which will receive that assistance. I say it in the sense that I know that there are many hon. Members, on both sides, who will play their part to assist this and other sports to be able to be put on the basis which is deserving of our country.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Hamling: I do not want to detain the House long, but I should like to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) when he said that he wanted to bring back the debate to the broader question behind the Bill—that is,

assistance to horseracing and to this sport—and not some of the narrow questions that we were earlier discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member does not carry the debate too wide. I was trying to choose an appropriate moment to interrupt the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) because he went a little wide on occasions. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will not go too wide on this issue.

Mr. Hamling: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that I am in order in talking about the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Roebuck: And what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, because we are discussing a betting levy Bill and assistance to the horseracing industry and not the narrow, mean, personal references that were made in an earlier speech on Third Reading. We are talking about the Bill and the encouragement that it will give to horseracing. That is what the Bill is about, and not some of the narrow, personal points that were made earlier in this debate. I hope that this goes on record.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet was quite right in saying that we want to improve the amenities, and that is the purpose of the Bill, because unless we improve them, there will be no horseracing industry in this country. This is what the Bill is about. It is no good the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) shaking his head. He knows that attendance at horserace meetings has been going down for years. He knows that the number of horses taking part in races has been going down. He knows that certain meetings have ceased. He knows that the number of horseraces going out of existence has increased in recent years.

Mr. John Pardoe: I must take up the hon. Gentleman on this point. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. W. Rees-Davies) and he are in agreement in saying the main reason why people stay away from racecourses is because they can use the blower during the races to lay bets. That means


that the only people who are staying away from the racecourses are those who want to bet. If the only people who want to go to racecourses are those who want to bet, can he say that this is a sport?

Mr. Hamling: No. The hon. Gentleman has not listened to our earlier debates and what has been said in Committee and Second Reading. The main reason for the increase in off-course betting as against on-course betting is the trimming of the odds on on-course betting in favour of off-course betting. The hon. Gentleman did not make that point. This was a decision taken by the big bookmakers at a meeting in Cheltenham. On Second Reading I mentioned Newmarket by mistake. The big bookmakers at Cheltenham decided to fix the odds in favour of off-course betting against on-course betting.
That apart, we know that people have been discouraged by low prices. A far better return can be achieved by sending horses abroad, and one of the purposes of the Betting Levy Board is to improve the profitability of winning horseraces. I see nothiing wrong in that when one knows the costs of training horses and the costs of running training stables. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) spoke of wealthy trainers; there are one or two wealthy trainers, but there are very many who are not so wealthy, and in recent years many have gone out of business.
The purpose of the Betting Levy Board is to improve horseracing and to improve the breeding of bloodstock, which is a very profitable industry. My hon. Friend speaks of my noble Friend receiving an increase in salary of £1,200 a year, but an improvement in this industry can produce not £1,200 a year for the British taxpayer and the balance of payments but many millions. That is what we are talking about, and that is what the Bill is about. It is an admirable Bill, and I hope that the House will carry it unanimously.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Walden: I told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when we were discussing the Amendment this evening that I would not make all my remarks on the Amendment but would say something on Third Reading. I did so deliberately because there is to be no vote and no one

need stay other than the Minister and his officials who will be bidding goodbye to the Bill, no doubt to their relief. I feel in honour bound to make one or two points in view of my consistent opposition to some essential points contained in Clause 1.
I agree with the purposes of the Bill, as I have always agreed with the purposes and the chairmanship of the Betting Levy Board. If that is a point at issue, I put it on record. The Betting Levy Board is a desirable and in many ways necessary institution which has been well run for the benefit of racing.
I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but I hope that they, who have such a wide knowledge of this subject, will look at an article by the racing correspondent which appeared a week or two back in the Observer and which was about why anybody should ever bother to go to a racecourse when they could sit pleasantly in the club having a drink and watching it on television. I thought that he had a case.
One of the difficulties about racing in this country is that it never was a spectators' sport as the Americans understand it. The first American gentleman I ever met who had been to an English racecourse told me with amazement that he could not see the racing. He said that in America the tracks were designed to enable every yard of them to be seen. But even if those criticisms are true, and even if the correspondent of the Observer is right, as I suspect he is, in putting his finger on television as the main culprit in terms of declining attendances, I hope, with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, that the Bill will be for the betterment of racing in the near future. I am sure that it will be.
Having said that, I must come back to my serious objections to Clause 1, and to the precedents which it could create, One can split hairs about the fact that the independent members of the Board are appointed by the Government—and they are. Virtually everyone in society is appointed by someone. But until the enactment of this Bill the Betting Levy Board will have been an independent body. We have struck a difficulty, as


one often does when dealing with independent agencies outside the ambit of Government. There has been a quarrel between different groups whose responsibility it was to bring in a levy scheme.
One could have thought of several ways out of that dilemma. It is not untypical, in the sense of the spirit of the age and the way in which we look at things, that we have chosen to cut straight through the difficulty by ensuring that in future the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary alone, shall decide in the event of a dispute. That is a most important point, about which I shall say more. Once again, we have decided that when we have a difficulty with an agency outside the responsibility of the House of Commons, the solution is to bring it within the responsibility oft the House of Commons.
I could say a great deal about this aspect. My hon. Friend has heard me speaking about it in public and in priyate, and I shall not weary him again except to say that I am sure that this is wrong; and that this Bill enshrines to some extent a principle of which we shall have to rid ourselves in the 'seventies. What we shall need is a more independent agency, less interference by the Executive—and, for that matter, less supervision by the Legislature—because such supervision is in many cases, as I fear it will be in this case, very largely illusory.
I shall not run through all the discussions that took place in Committee about how comparatively valueless it is that the Home Secretary is subject to the scrutiny of the House—and that remark is not meant to be disrespectful of the House of Commons. As was proved in Committee, most media open to us are never used. The Opposition would not give a Supply Day for a vote of censure on such a matter. We then come to the Written and the Oral Question, and I do not regard either of those, valuable as both are, as really effective means of probing the intentions of Ministers or of their advisers. I do not want to drift off the subject, so I shall not go too deeply into that point, except to say that one of the reasons why Question time is so beloved is that it is so largely ineffective in controlling the people who make decisions in all the Departments.
That being so, I do not like, first of all, one of the central principles of the

Bill and one of the central assumptions so often repeated by my hon. Friend, about the Bill, that to take power from the Board and give it to the Executive on the ground is the simplest way and the best way of dealing with the matter, and the way in which Parliament will have most control over what happens. I find all that a most questionable proposition.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend now come to the central point of why the Bill has come into existence? Is it not that unless we have this sort of power, there may be no agreement and that we have not had a levy because of a flaw in the existing arrangements? Will he suggest any alternative method whereby we could overcome this flaw without the long stop of the Home Secretary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest an alternative, he would be out of order.

Mr. Walden: I will take note of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it puts me in a rather difficult position. I am aware that I must speak about only what is in the Bill. The Bill grants the Home Secretary the power to solve the problem which my hon. Friend poses. I would have drafted the Bill to give the power to the Chairman of the Betting Levy Board. I shall not elaborate that incidental comment.
First, I do not like the general direction of Clause 1. Next, I like even less the fact, which we have elicited bit by bit, not because of any attempt by the Under-Secretary to deceive, but because of our own difficulties in understanding the Clause, that what the disputes procedure means is that, although in practice the Home Secretary may do a whole series of things in the event of a dispute, the Bill will bind him to do nothing other than produce a scheme. He does not have to take anybody's advice in producing it, and that includes the Chairman of the Betting Levy Board. As I said at the time, that seems to be wrong and a thoroughly bad idea.
My hon. Friend has given some assurances on behalf of the Home Secretary who, as he knows, is an old friend of mine. I would be the last man to question his word or his assurances. But I do not agree with my hon. Friend that


a Home Secretary—not the present Home Secretary—may be regarded as an impartial arbiter, a phrase my hon. Friend used many times. My hon. Friend often said that we could rely on the impartiality of the Home Secretary.
I do not believe a word of it. The Home Secretary is a member of the Cabinet, and he is the last man in the world on whose impartiality one can rely, and that is not meant in any offensive sense. The Home Secretary is a member of a team. If the Cabinet decides, for instance, that the sport of horseracing—or any other sport—could provide more money generally, if it thinks that the betting tax should go up, the first thing that will happen is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will request the Home Secretary—not the present holder of the office, because he has given guarantees, but a Home Secretary not bound by those guarantees—to see him some time, or that they should have a drink, or that the Departmental officials responsible should meet for what would be called a general talk on the subject of betting. The Home Office and the Treasury would work together.
A Home Secretary would take infinitely more regard of the needs of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the needs of his other colleagues in the Cabinet and the Government to which he belongs and to which he rightly owes loyalty than he would of any other single factor. In that sense, he would not be and never could be impartial. That is exactly the reason why I do not like decisions of this kind in the hands of executives.

Mr. Hamling: Would my hon. Friend regard the Chairman of the Levy Board as completely impartial?

Mr. Walden: No. I have to be careful to obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I mean no criticism of the Chairman of the Board when I say that he is not completely impartial, in the sense that what will concern him are the interests of racing. The present Chairman has already told us what his ideas are, and they seem to be sensible: he wishes to raise as much money as is needed for the betterment of horseracing, without going beyond the capacity of racing to pay
In that sense he is an interested party. But—and this is the difference—at least he is interested in the interests of horseracing. It is purely a question whether he thinks that, if he takes this much from one section or allows that much to another, that the levy shall be at this or that rate, it will be a good or a bad thing for racing. In the Bill we have taken away from the Levy Board the ultimate determination of that kind of matter. We have replaced it with what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary calls an impartial agency.
I will redefine that. He does not mean an impartial agency. He means someone who is neither a protagonist of the Levy Board's view——

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Someone independent.

Mr. Walden: —nor a protagonist of the bookmakers' view. That does not necessarily mean an impartial arbiter. All executives carry the original blight and taint of being executives—of putting the Government's interests, quite rightly, ahead of anything else.
I am aware that the principles of the Bill were wanted by the Chairman of the Betting Levy Board. In the short term, I am sure that he thinks it is the best way out of his difficulties. But, in the long term, I am sure that he will regret the Bill, as will subsequent chairmen of the Levy Board.
What will happen eventually, if the Bill is passed in this form—as it will be—is that regard for the general amount of money that can be raised in betting duty will adversely affect the amount that can be raised for the betterment of racing. That is what always happens with Governments. They regard subjects—Chancellors do especially, and rightly so—as taxable units. But we have to see that the tax is apportioned properly and we must have regard to ability to pay, even though we have taken it out of the provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, I am afraid that when the betting duty, which has already proved to be highly successful, goes up again, the mere fact that we have passed the Bill in this form will lead to a situation which will suit the Chairman of the Levy Board no more than it will suit the


bookmakers. I have that significant objection to the principles of Clause 1.
I have this final objection. I cannot believe that the Bill, good though it is in many of its provisions and good though its intentions are, is a final solution. Throughout these discussions the Under-Secretary has consistently said that it was. He has taken the view that the original legislation of 1961, having been examined over a period of time, has led to the conclusions that produced the Amendments to the Bill. I will not argue with him yet again on that hypothesis. But I doubt that the Bill can have any finality, because I think that we will find it maximises rather than minimises disputes. I do not see in the Bill anything like the number of guarantees that would be needed to make it worth while for the contending parties——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can discuss only the Bill as it is, not how he would like it to be.

Mr. Walden: I take note of that, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I say that the Bill, as it stands, gives an inducement for matters ultimately to come to the Home Secretary. So far, one levy scheme in seven has ended there. I predict that in the next few years, as a result of the provisions in the Bill which make it hardly worth the while of contending parties to resolve their contentions within the Levy Board because of the real possibility of having them overturned by the Home Secretary, many more of these disputes will come to the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary will be able to do one of two things. He will either work independently within his Department, taking such advice as he chooses, or he will take the advice of the men with whom he ought to have left the decision in the first place. I welcome the many good things that the Bill will do, but I hope that it is the last Bill of this kind that the House will be asked to pass, shifting as it does from people who ought to know better, and ought to be in power to know better, responsibilities on to the Executive which the Executive is ill-equipped to discharge.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Kitson: We had a very useful discussion in Committee. While we on

this side of the House have opposed the Bill at some stages, we have done it in good heart, in an attempt to improve it, and many of us feel that if we had succeeded in getting rid of some——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the official reporters if the hon. Member speaks up.

Mr. Kitson: Many of us feel that if we could have made some alterations to Clause 1 the Bill would have been improved considerably.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has continually pointed his finger at the Board and suggested that the money being raised under the Bill is for the benefit of rich racehorse owners who win vast quantities of money. I have declared an interest before, and only yesterday a horse in which I have an interest won a race at Doncaster. A £1,000 race had £600 contributed by the Levy Board.
When he talks in terms of rich racehorse owners, I beg the hon. Member for West Ham, North to bear in mind that this is a particularly good animal. It has won 16 races, eight of £1,000. It has been placed second on 22 occasions. It has been third on seven occasions, and it has been out of the first three on four occasions. I suppose it is as good a two-mile chaser as there is in the country. At the end of last season, other than its increase in capital value—and it is a gelding, so it is of no use for breeding—it was winning £15.
I beg the hon. Member for West Ham, North to realise what a struggle it is, even for people with good horses, to make a profit out of racing. They do not expect to, because they enjoy the game, and it is unfortunate that so many people, because of the advantages of having their horses trained in France, who win much better races—£1,000 sellers at country meetings—are being attracted to send their horses abroad to win races and to make profits.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing, not horseracing and betting in general, but a Bill.

Mr. Kitson: I am sorry if I strayed out of order.
I am sure that the Bill will do much to improve the lot of everybody involved


in the racing industry in this country. I am sure that the Board will spend the money that is raised by the levy to the advantage not only of the owner, the trainer, the jockey and the stable boy, but also the racegoer, and for that reason I welcome its main provisions.

12.38 a.m.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) described this as a bad Bill. My view of it is that Clause 1 spoils what is otherwise a good and necessary Bill.
I have felt very sorry indeed for the Under-Secretary of State. He has been very courteous, very patient, and very thorough There have been one or two events which must have shaken the hon. Gentleman during the passage of the Bill, but I really have been sorry for him, as one who once occupied his position, at having to defend this miserable vulnerable Clause 1.
I think that not for the first time in our proceedings the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) made a very powerful speech, mainly in criticism of Clause 1. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are unanswerable, and I agree with most of them, but there is one point on which I must register my disagreement. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean it in any unkind way when he said that he doubted the impartiality of the Chairman of the Levy Board, because he felt that the Chairman, having the interests of racing at heart, would not be impartial when deciding as between the needs of racing and the interests of punters and, therefore, of bookmakers or, indeed, of the Tote.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, very well. We have often crossed swords, but I do not believe that he is lacking in impartiality in that sense. I said in Standing Committee, and I repeat, that I think that we should have complete confidence in the noble Lord's impartiality as an independent chairman. That goes, also, for the other two independent members of the Board. It should not be forgotten that the Chairman can, if necessary, be out-voted by those two gentlemen. It is they who in a sense have the key part to play. The three wise men together have been doing a good job over these years, first, under Lord Harding and, later, under Lord Wigg.
I emphatically agree with the hon. Member for All Saints that to pretend that we shall get a more independent judgment or a better informed judgment or greater impartiality from the Home Secretary is a plain delusion. The 1961 Act has stood the test of eight years. I doubt whether the Bill will stand the test of time for as long as that. The Bill will put us back to square one, because the Home Secretary does not, and cannot be expected to, know much about the ramifications of the betting side of the business. He will have to rely upon advice from the Home Office.
There is power under Clause 1(6) for the Home Office to call on unspecified types of outside advisers with unspecified qualifications. Even those advisers, when they are making an inquiry so that they can help the Home Secretary, will have to go to the Board and to the Bookmakers' Committee and get not only information but, inevitably, advice. The Home Secretary will find that he has to take a decision on his own. He is a politician with the prejudices to which all of us are unfortunately a prey.
I am not at all happy about Clause 1. It is a pity that an otherwise good and necessary Bill should be spoiled in this way. It is just as well that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson), having a share in that most remarkable horse, gave the facts about its successes, because they did something to redress the balance after some of the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham, North.
Referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I hope that under the powers given by the Bill it will be borne in mind that, if we want to improve racing, it is necessary, not only to improve prize money, but also to improve amenities for the public. The Board has been helping racecourse owners to improve amenities to a considerable extent, including, I am glad to say, at Huntingdon in my constituency. But this must not be forgotten. After all, the racing industry exists not primarily for the pleasure and benefit of the people in it, even people like my hon. Friend. It is a great national public sport and the public have a right to feel that they are being well served if they support it.


So my hon. Friend's point was well made——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not against that. I only said, let us have all sports treated alike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot treat all other sports in this Bill.

Sir D. Renton: If you please, Mr. Speaker.
Whatever disputes we may have had during the passage of the Bill, I am sure that we all hope that, despite the powers contained in Clause 1, the independent members of the Betting Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee will somehow manage to agree so that the Home Secretary's powers do not have to be used.
When this legislation was introduced, we wanted the industry to look after its own affairs, and that is why we placed the matter firmly in the hands of the industry, subject only to the quasi-judicial decisions to be taken independently by the three wise men. I hope that that will continue as far as possible, and I am sure that the House would wish to join in extending to Lord Wigg and his colleagues and the Bookmakers' Committee best wishes for their success in that sense in the years to come.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again. I speak only out of a sense of courtesy to those who have taken part in the debate. The Bill is now in much the same state as when introduced, except for certain mechanical but necessary Amendments made in Committee. We have covered the ground thoroughly. I welcome the fact that, with the sole but substantial exception of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), all speakers have generally welcomed the Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to what he alleged to be an increase in the salary of Lord Wigg. It is certainly not my intention to comment on that, except——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not come in the Bill at all.

Mr. Morgan: I was about to say that, while I do not accept my hon. Friend's

contentions, he has a Question down for tomorrow and we hope that he will be in his usual place, as usual, to ask it.
The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) hoped that the procedure in the Acts of 1961 and 1963 will operate and that it will not be necessary to use the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. I heartily agree and endorse the hope that this will be the case for many years to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) made a powerful speech. It was refreshing to hear him on this, as on other subjects. I cannot accept his argument that it was wrong to bring this matter within the jurisdiction of a Minister of the Crown. I will not go over this ground again, except to stress that as my hon. Friend's main argument is that there has been a substantial departure in principle from the state of affairs which has existed under the 1963 Act, I repeat the question I posed in Committee: since, under the present system, we have three independent members of the Board vested with these substantial powers and appointed by the Secretary of State, how can it be a real departure in principle if the final arbiter is the Secretary of State rather than his own nominees?
If one is talking in terms of absolute independence and impartiality, and if one were to accept that a future Secretary of State might be tainted with partiality, it follows that his nominees would be tainted with exactly the same partiality.

Mr. Walden: Sometime my hon. Friend must refresh his memory about Henry II and Thomas a'Becket.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the Third Reading of a Bill which, I suspect, has nothing to do with Henry II.

Mr. Morgan: In most cases the partiality of the principal is vested in his nominees and agents, with certain distinguished historical exceptions.

Sir D. Renton: Not the judges.

Mr. Morgan: We are here giving powers, vesting responsibility, in a Minister to be exercised in a judicial capacity. The Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will well realise the nature of these


duties and I am confident that they will be discharged properly and in accordance with that judicial function.
I remind hon. Members who have said that it might have been possible to have vested these powers in somebody else that the Peppiat Committee, which reported in April, 1960, gave the clear recommendation that these powers should be vested in the Secretary of State. I appreciate that a different policy was adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but all that we are now doing is acting in accordance with that clear recommendation of the Peppiat Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints said that there was a danger that a Secretary of State might hold conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and would be prevailed on to reach a certain decision which would materially affect his judgment in regard to the way in which this money should be spent. I am not certain that my hon. Friend meant that, since money can be spent only in accordance with the provisions of Clause 24(1) of the Bill.
I will not go in detail into the question of the raising of the money, except to point out that if such conversations were to take place, then, in the main, the result would probably be to the benefit of the people from whom the levy was received. In other words, they would, by and large, be more likely to affect the Secretary of State's decision in lowering, rather than raising, the level of the levy. In any case, the jurisdiction is vested in him. As a Minister, he is answerable to Parliament and, although it may not be easy to raise these matters from day to day, ultimately Parliament has a full and effective check on his powers and I am sure that it will be exercised.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) expressed sorrow that I was not able to accept Amendments in Committee. I feel somewhat sorry on that account, but if I made it impossible to accept Amendments from members of the Opposition, I hope that I made up for that by exhorting the

Committee to accept Amendments put down by the Government.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire for his very generous remarks and for the way in which he has conducted himself and his case throughout on this Bill. He has treated me with considerable generosity and chivalry which I appreciate, but I cannot accept his argument that the Bill would be improved if Clause 1 were not in it. The Bill would not be a Bill at all without Clause 1. It would be like a ship without a keel. The House has only to remind itself that in Clauses 2 and 3 we are giving considerable powers that amount to very sharp teeth in relation to sanctions against bookmakers who would be unwilling to pay the levy. If we took out Clause 1 we would be vesting——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if we could have done so, this is now past the stage when we could.

Mr. Morgan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I accept your stricture.
I hope that the House accepts that the Bill with Clause 1 as it is is a complete Bill and the inclusion of Clause 1 prevents vesting the Chairman of the Levy Board with what otherwise would amount to very considerable powers not answerable to Parliament.
The racing industry depends very substantially upon the moneys raised by way of this levy. Bookmakers have accepted this from the start. The benefits conferred upon horseracing thereby have been made possible by the Acts of 1961 and 1963. We are not adding anything material to those benefits. An impasse came about on account of the eighth levy scheme. The bookmakers were absolutely in conflict with Parliament on this issue. It was impossible on account of their opposition to carry out the statutory provisions. Hence the necessity for the Bill. I ask the House to allow it to proceed to be deliberated upon in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — GUY'S HOSPITAL (GUY ALDERSON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12.58 a.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: The case to which I wish to draw attention is an extremely tragic one. Raising it causes certain difficulties. It is no part of my intention to pillory individual doctors, but this is a case either of terrifying negligence or alarming ignorance. In either case, doctors, like the rest of us, have to accept the consequences of their actions.
This case shows the medical profession in the worst possible light. There was a conspiracy of silence among those concerned and a banding together and what the coroner called:
The schoolboy code".
He went on to speak of
this idea that you should not sneak; not get others into trouble.
This was also exemplified by the Medical Defence Union, which printed a summary of the case in its annual report. I asked for a copy of that report and the union wrote saying that it could not let me have one because it was only for its members to see. I regard that answer to a Member of Parliament as quite inadequate. It merely makes the union look childish, because presumably it thought that I would not have the resources to obtain the report elsewhere, as I did.
I have some difficulty in the case in the naming of names. I have a hatred of using Parliamentary privilege to say things that I would not say outside, but the names I am using of the doctors concerned have already been mentioned in the Press and by the coroner.
For the benefit of the Minister, I should like to spell out my purposes in raising the matter at this stage. My first is to ensure that this can never happen again, and that the training of anaesthetists is such as to ensure that. My second is to ensure that all the necessary action has been taken, including that recommended by the coroner concerning the design of machinery and other matters. My third is to get an independent inquiry, which is my main endeavour. My fourth,

is to get answers to questions which have been raised in correspondence between me and the Minister, between my constituent, Mr. Stanley Alderson, and the Minister and in correspondence between him and Lord Robens, Chairman of the Governors of Guy's Hospital. He has had no response to these questions.
I also raise the general problems of the consumer who gets a bad deal from the National Health Service. Perhaps it is necessary in the present climate of opinion to say that none of the doctors involved in the case is an immigrant or is coloured, or has any difficulties in reading the English language.
The facts are not disputed. On 18th September, 1967, at 8.30 a.m. Guy Alderson, aged seven, was operated on at Guy's Hospital for a hole in the heart condition known as Fallot's Tetralogy. It was a successful operation, carried out by Lord Brock. After the operation he was taken to the intensive care ward, where he was connected to a Cape ventilating machine, the purpose being to increase the supply of oxygen. His condition deteriorated rapidly, and he went blue. The surgeon—not Lord Brock, but his assistant who had been handling the case—asked the anaesthetist, Dr. Simpson, to check the machine, and was told that it was working well. By 9.5 p.m. on Monday evening Guy's condition was so bad that Mr. Yates, the surgeon, returned him to the operating theatre, reopened his chest and found nothing wrong. The blueness disappeared, and the boy returned to normal colour. He was returned to the intensive care ward and was reconnected to the same Cape ventilating machine. Almost immediately his condition deteriorated and he went blue again.
At 8.30 a.m. the folowing day another anaesthetist, Dr. Lindsey, took over in the intensive care ward. Guy's condition continued to deteriorate throughout the day. At 5 p.m. that afternoon a Dr. Gerson took over as anaesthetist in the intensive care ward. Just after five o'clock the surgeon, Mr. Yates performed a tracheotomy. Guy was removed from the Cape ventilating machine for this and was transferred to a Boyle's anaesthetic machine. He again lost the blue-ness and regained normal colour.
After the tracheotomy he was reconnected for the third time to the Cape


ventilating machine, and almost immediately went blue. At 6.45 that evening Dr. Germon, the anaesthetist in charge, noticed that the oxygen tube was connected to the "outlet" port instead of the "inlet" port of the machine. He corrected this, but the damage had already been done. He then telephoned Dr. Lindsey and told him, and Dr. Lindsey decided not to tell the surgeon or the head of the anaesthetics department. He did not do so until the next morning. In other words, he did not tell one of his superiors, the surgeon or the head of the department, until 14 hours after he knew that the machine was faulty.
On 3rd October, Guy Alderson died after a fortnight in a coma. I quote from the post-mortem examination report:
There is complete infarcation of the entire brain, which is semi-fluid in consistency.
I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the appalling problem facing the parents in such a situation. Imagine what they want done and what they felt like after the first despair had disappeared. First, that such a thing must not happen again. Indeed, how could it have happened at all? What kind of qualifications and training can possible allow this kind of thing to happen? What is the logical inference of blueness? Even someone as untrained in medical matters as I, would, I think, have thought that lack of oxygen was the first logical inference, and since the machine was meant to be responsible for supplying it, surely, therefore, that the machine was at fault.
Perhaps one might have neglected that the first time and even the second time, but surely not the third time. When one was being given basic instruction with the Bren gun in the cadet force, there were things known as first, second and third I.A. It stood for "immediate action".
It should not be necessary to have this kind of immediate action in an anaesthetic ward. The training should be such as not to make it necessary. But it is necessary. The hon. Gentleman should say what instructions are given for the used of such machinery now as a result of this case; what immediate action is resorted to if this kind of thing happens; when it is right in these circumstances that the anaesthetist should report to the surgeon if an error occurs; and when it

is right that he should report to the head of the anaesthetics department, to whom he is responsible.
I ask whether the recommended modifications to the design, mentioned in the coroner's report, have been made. I do not want to labour this point, because the fault was human and not mechanical. I also ask a point which I have raised in correspondence with the former Minister of Health and which the father of the child, my constituent, has raised with Lord Robens in several letters. How exactly did Guy die?
According to the coroner's report, Guy died of lack of oxygen, but there is a great deal of conflict in the evidence. If the machine was not connected properly to the oxygen supply, he was presumably—and the evidence says this—breathing ordinary air from the room. In many hospitals, as Mr. Yates said in evidence, it is customary not to use a ventilating machine in this kind of situation, so that in some hospitals Guy would only have been breathing normal air and not fortified air. It is important that the father should be told exactly what happened and how it was that there was a lack of oxygen in the normal air supply. Presumably, there was something rather more wrong with the machine than has been said.
I believe that an independent inquiry must be held. The Minister has refused, in correspondence with me and with the father, to hold one. I do not want an inquiry to be held as Lord Robens said it had been held, by people who, if I may say so, have an axe to grind; people who have employed those concerned, who are now employing the people concerned, and people who like the people concerned. It must be an independent inquiry and include laymen to look into the general state of anaesthetics and the training of anaesthetists in the light of this case.
Lastly, what about the general consumer of the National Health Service? What redress does he have in the light of this case? I would be terrified to put myself in the hands of an anaesthetist. If I go to hospital for a complicated operation, is the surgeon responsible for me? Or is he not even to be told what has happened to me when I have passed out of his immediate care?


If I go to hospital, I want to know who is in charge and who is responsible.
I raise again the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in Questions to the Secretary of State on Monday about the possibility of an Ombudsman for the N.H.S. I note with some satisfaction that the Secretary of State replied that he was actively considering the recommendation of the Green Paper that this should be done, although he added that he could not make a decision until further discussions had been held.
I do not know, if the Secretary of State set up this commissioner, that he would be able to look into cases such as this which have happened, but we cannot wait for these discussions in this case. The Secretary of State has all the powers he needs to hold an inquiry. He must do so for the safety of future patients, which is at stake, for the good name of Guy's Hospital and of the Health Service, which are at stake, and to clear his Department and Lord Robens of the impression that although they started by being immensely horrified—as no one could possibly help being—by these events, and by wanting to do something to help, they were got at by medical interests, and ended by giving the impression that jointly they were usurping the rôle of the Medical Defence Union and were more concerned to defend the doctors' reputations than to give the parents proper satisfaction. This may be a very serious charge and the Under-Secretary may feel that it is unjustified, but it is what Guy's father feels, and after reading the correspondence I have no alternative but to agree with him. An independent inquiry is needed and must be held.

1.14 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I have listened with great sympathy to the speech of the hon. Member the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I know from the correspondence that he has had with my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health that this tragic incident has been of particular concern to him.
As the hon. Member has said, Guy Stephen Alderson, who, at the time of his

death, was aged seven years, had suffered with a congenital heart condition called Fallot's Tetralogy. In the latter part of 1966, he was admitted to Guy's Hospital, London, for certain tests which confirmed this condition. It was arranged for him to have an operation and he was admitted to Guy's Hospital on 10th September, 1967.
An operation, which was successful in correcting the boy's heart condition, was performed on 18th September by a consultant surgeon, with the assistance of the senior thoracic registrar. On leaving the operating theatre, the boy's condition was reasonable and he was taken into the intensive care ward for follow-up treatment under the care of an anaesthetics registrar. When the registrar connected the boy to a machine for ventilating his lungs a doctor who had administered the anaesthetic at the operation noticed that the inflation pressure was high and that the valve on the machine's oxygen attachment was tight.
After this valve had been loosened the inflation pressure returned to normal and the registrar subsequently admitted that he had not considered the true significance of this. He maintained that the ventilator was already in the recovery room when the boy was transferred from the operation and, while he did not recollect plugging in the nozzle to the oxygen supply, he accepted that it was his responsibility to ensure that the machine was properly connected.
The senior thoracic registrar noticed that the patient was becoming cyanosed—that is, turning blue, as the hon. Member said. This was an unexpected development following the successful operation and he concluded that the cyanosis was due either to a respiratory or to a cardiac condition hitherto unsuspected. He conducted a number of tests to establish whether or not this was caused by the respiratory condition of the patient. He also asked the anaesthetics registrar if this condition was satisfactory.
The registrar checked the machine and found nothing wrong, but he subsequently stated that he could not recollect whether the "inlet" and "outlet" ports, which were shielded by the corner of the room, were properly connected. In view of this, the senior thoracic registrar consulted the consultant surgeon, explained the unusual post-operative condition of


the patient, and it was agreed that the patient's heart should be re-examined in the theatre.
There are many cardiac causes of cyanosis, but this second investigation revealed not only that the original condition had been totally corrected but that there appeared to be no cardiac cause for the cyanosis which had by this time disappeared. The anaesthetics registrar was aware of the result of the second investigation, and although the patient became cyanosed again after he had been replaced on the ventilator, it did not occur to him that the machine was the common factor in the patient's deterioration.
The patient was in the care of the registrar throughout the night of 18th September and was transferred early next morning to a senior registrar in the anaesthetics department, who was told that the patient had been ventilated during the night and that his condition was unsatisfactory. He, the senior registrar, did not, however, suspect that the ventilator might be faulty. That evening, he handed over to a middle-grade registrar in the anaesthetics department. It had by then been decided to perform a tracheotomy on the patient.
After this had been carried out, the middle-grade registrar reconnected the patient to the ventilator, when he again turned blue. The registrar checked the ventilator and noticed that the oxygen tube was connected to the "outlet" port instead of the "inlet" port. He corrected this and noticed an immediate improvement in the patient's colour. He did not know how long the connection had been incorrectly positioned and decided to telephone the senior anaesthetics registrar in the hope that he would be able to canfirm or deny that the machine had been satisfactorily connected when he left. It was clear to the senior registrar that the registrar would have informed the senior thoracic registrar if he had considered another operation advisable.
The registrar was of the opinion that nothing further could be done for the paient and the senior registrar agreed with him that there was no need at that stage to call in any other doctor, and in the circumstances they agreed to see the consultant surgeon and the consultant anaesthetist—neither of whom were at

the hospital that evening—early the next morning.
As the hon. Member will recall, it was established at the inquest on the patient's death that whoever had been called or reported to at that time could not, unfortunately, have been of any assistance to the patient. By that stage, he was beyond recovery, and the cause of death was established by the coroner as "cerebral infarction following total correction of Fallot's Tetralogy—misadventure."
I understand that this means that because insufficient oxygen was reaching it, the brain suffered irreversible damage. I admit that this was not made clear at the time to Mr. and Mrs. Alderson, the patient's parents, and as the hon. Member is aware, an apology has already been given for this omission.
I do not think that the hon. Member will dispute the facts of the case. None of the doctors involved wished or attempted to hide the fact that the machine was incorrectly connected. Indeed, the anaesthetics registrar specifically pointed out the mistake to the sister at the time. It is, however, most unfortunate that the mistake was not recognised until it was too late. Action was taken by the hospital to prevent a recurrence and, as the hon. Member is aware—and he has mentioned this tonight—discussions with the manufacturers of the apparatus have resulted in design changes to eliminate the possibility of error.
The hon. Member has also raised doubts about the adequacy of the anaesthetic training facilities at Guy's Hospital. I am advised that junior doctors there are taught the principles of respiratory support at a very early stage of their career, during the period when they are holding the appointment of resident anaesthetist. This teaching takes place in the operating theatres where doctors are attached to a consultant anaesthetist at various operating lists. At the end of their resident appointments, all anaesthetists have had practical experience in both ventilation by hand and in the use of mechanical ventilators.
At registrar level, the same process is continued as much as possible in the operating theatres. Usually, a registrar at Guy's Hospital has had additional experience at other hospitals before he ever obtains an appointment there and he is,


therefore, fairly practised on his arrival in the use of a ventilator for mechanical inflation of the lungs. Since his appointment, a consultant at the hospital has utilised two of his weekly sessions solely for improving, maintaining and teaching on the anaesthetic equipment used in the intensive care unit.
Periodically, meetings, which include discussions on the respiratory work in the ward in question, are held between junior staff and at which anaesthetic problems occurring in the hospital are discussed. I will not burden the hon. Member with the considerably detailed standing instructions for the use of respirators, but I have been assured that the greatest care and attention is paid at Guy's Hospital to the training of the junior medical staff in this specialty.
There will never be an ideal training programme, and I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there is a limit to the safeguards which can be provided to minimise what are human errors. It is, nevertheless, a fact that the anaesthetic department at Guy's Hospital has a reputation for training a considerable number of the consultant anaesthetists in the country.
Independent medical opinion has supported the view of his colleagues that the anaesthetics registrar who first took charge of the patient is an anaesthetist of above average ability, and the inference of disgrace cannot be drawn from his transfer and that of the senior registrar

from Guy's. Senior registrars and registrars are normally inclined to change their jobs as part of their training, and neither transfer had any connection with the accident. The hon. Member did not raise that point, but I want to make it clear and have it on record.
In conclusion, I would like to add that all the correspondence in this sad case has been most carefully considered and I have noted that the facts are not in dispute. This tragedy was the result of human failure, and no one could read the papers without a feeling of deep concern and of profound sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Alderson in their tragic bereavement. As the hon. Member is aware, all the issues here have been considered with great care both by the Department and the Board of Governors of Guy's Hospital.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention here that both the chairman and the officers of the Board made themselves freely available to Mr. Alderson, both in person and throughout protracted correspondence in an effort to explain the facts of the case to him. I regret, therefore, that I can only confirm the decision of my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Health that no useful purpose would be served by instituting any further inquiry into the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 5th March, 1969

[MR. GEORGE ROGERS in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. George Rogers(in the Chair)


Eadie, Mr. Alex (Midlothian)
Hunter, Mr. Adam (Dunfermline Burghs)


Fletcher Cooke, Mr. Charles (Darwen)
Lloyd, Mr. Ian (Portsmouth, Langstone)


Fortescue, Mr. Tim (Liverpool, Garston)
McGuire, Mr. Michael (Ince)


Freeson, Mr. Reginald (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power)
McNair-Wilson, Mr. Patrick (New Forest)


Gardner, Mr. Tony (Rushcliffe)
Neave, Mr. Airey (Abingdon)


Griffiths, Mr. David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, Mr. Arthur (Bristol, Central)


Griffiths, Mr. Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Price, Mr. David (Eastleigh)


Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)
Ridley, Mr. Nicholas (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)


Haseldine, Mr. Norman (Bradford, West)
Weatherill, Mr. Bernard (Croydon, North-East)


Hordern, Mr. Peter (Horsham)
Woof, Mr. Robert (Blaydon)



Mr. K. A. Bradshaw, Committee Clerk.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the Nuclear Installations Bill are not completed at this day's Sitting the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Freeson.]

10.31 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Free-son): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Nuclear Installations Bill ought to be read a Second time.
This is a highly complex and technical little Bill about a highly complex and technical subject, so I hope that the Committee will bear with rather more detailed remarks about its contents than is perhaps usual in a Second Reading debate.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, to bring it completely into line with the international Conventions on third party liability for nuclear damage caused in the most unlikely event of accidents in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. To explain what is being done I must outline this system of liability.
There are three of these Conventions. One of them was negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and was signed at Vienna in May, 1963. The other two were negotiated within the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development. Of these, one was signed at Paris in July, 1960, and the other at Brussels in January, 1964. Both were amended in 1964 to make them compatible with the


Vienna Convention. These three Conventions provided a basis for a uniform international code dealing with third party damage liability, in the interests of developing peaceful uses of nuclear energy and easing the international movement of nuclear material for this purpose.
The United Kingdom, as a developer and exporter of nuclear technology, has a considerable interest in this objective and played a leading part in the negotiations for the Conventions. The Government have signed and ratified the Paris and Brussels Conventions. As yet, we have not ratified the Vienna Convention. The Paris Convention is in force between, so far, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.
Our law must obviously, therefore, be consistent with the Conventions, and the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, set up in United Kingdom law the necessary system of liability. The features of this system are: to channel all liability to the operator of the nuclear installations in which the incident happened, or on whose behalf nuclear material is sent; to impose on the operator absolute liability; to limit that liability to a prescribed amount which should not be less than the equivalent of 5 million dollars per incident; and to ensure that adequate funds are made available from which the operator can meet this liability, and that they are used exclusively for that purpose.
In addition, the Brussels Convention provides for the unlikely event of a disastrous nuclear accident. Under these provisions, claims in excess of the operator's liability are met from public funds—partly from international contribution—up to the equivalent of 120 million dollars.
I can now turn to the provisions of this Bill. The 1967 devaluation of the pound took the financial provisions of the 1965 Act out of line in some respects with the compensation provisions of the Conventions. Because the Conventions specify certain dollar sums the 1965 Act used their then sterling equivalent, but devaluation brought these sterling sums below the Convention requirements. I think that it will be helpful to indicate what is involved in this.
It is not necessary to adjust the limit of £5 million in the 1965 Act for a United Kingdom operator's own liability. This is still well above the minimum limit of 5 million dollars in the Conventions.
As required by the Conventions, the Act sets the liability of other Convention countries' operators at the limit ruling in their own country, or £1¾ million, whichever is the greater—the sterling equivalent to the Convention minimum figure of 5 million dollars. This figure of £1¾ million needs to be corrected now to £2,100,000.
It is also necessary to correct the sum which the Act requires to be set aside as a minimum from the available compensation funds to meet the general run of claims if an accident involving nuclear matter in transit causes damage to the ship or other means of transport conveying the material. This was set at the 5 million dollar equivalent of £1¾ million, so needs to be corrected to £2,100,000.
The Act also puts the Government in the position of being able to operate the Brussels Convention system of meeting claims which outrun the operator's liability under the Paris Convention. For this, it provided for claims above £5 million, and up to £43 million to be met from public funds. This sum was the equivalent of 120 million dollars and, following devaluation, it needs to be corrected to £50 million.
In addition to this, we have found that, in two ways, the Act's rules of liability do not quite match the Conventions. I have already mentioned that the Conventions intend liability for injury and damage to property caused by a nuclear incident to arise only within the terms of the Conventions, and to be channelled to the responsible operator. It appears, however, that the 1965 Act would in law allow a liability to be imposed in certain circumstances on a person other than the operators. For example, the operator might be able to make the supplier of a faulty component liable for damage to the reactor itself if negligence could be proved. Property on the site of a nuclear installation which is used in connection with the operation or the construction of the installation is excluded by the Conventions from the


liability of the operator. In its present form, however, our Act would allow the owner of such property to claim against the operator if negligence could be established. The Bill excludes these possibilities.
Secondly, the Conventions intend that so far as possible an operator shall not be liable for damage suffered in a country which is not a party to the Convention. They recognise, however, that in some circumstances a person other than the operator may find himself obliged to pay damages in such a country. For example, the owner of a ship carrying the nuclear material concerned in an accident might find himself obliged to do this. To cover such cases the Conventions allow such a person to make a corresponding claim against the operator concerned. The right which the 1965 Act confers in this respect is not quite wide enough in the types of accident which it covers, and the Bill would widen it to make it consistent with the Conventions.
Looking at the financial implications of the Bill, I should emphasise that although the Bill increases the potential liability to the public funds from £43 million to £50 million the chances of a nuclear accident which would cause damage to such an extent are exceedingly remote, as are the chances of any nuclear accident of significance. It is, indeed, highly unlikely that an accident would occur causing damage exceeding even the compulsory £5 million cover of the operator. During what now amounts to a very substantial total experience of the operation of nuclear power stations no accident whatever has occurred that has had any effect outside the site of any commercial station. The only accident of consequence which has involved compensation claims was that which occurred at the Atomic Energy Authority's plant at Windscale in 1957, and which, incidentally, was of a kind which could not occur in a nuclear power station. This resulted in claims totalling less than £100,000.
I hope that all this detail has not wearied the Committee; but it was necessary to put it on record in order to introduce the Bill adequately. Stripped of this detail, however, the proposition which I am putting to the Committee is that our ratification of Conventions relating to nuclear damage means that

our domestic law must be consistent with their provisions. We now find that it is not quite so, and this Bill will remedy the defects.

10.42 a.m.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of this short amending Bill. When I read the Second Reading debate on the original legislation I noticed that only four speeches were made, three of them from the respective Front Benches. That possibly sets a precedent for us today.

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Price: The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum tells us that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Nuclear Installations Act, 1965, which is the consolidated Act, and bring that Act into full compliance with the international Conventions on liability for nuclear damage. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is a very sound purpose deserving of our support. It is very important that international Conventions on these matters are kept up to date, and none of them is more important than those Conventions dealing with nuclear damage which we seek to bring up to date in our domestic law today.
It is particularly important in relation to liability for nuclear hazard or damage. To draw a comparison with another case, namely, that of oil pollution, those of us who have followed recent events will realise that we are all very much better provided for in terms of nuclear hazards than we are in terms of damage from major oil pollution. It is to the credit of all concerned that we seem internationally to be trying to be ahead of events in relation to nuclear damage and liability in a way in which, in my view, we have not been in the case of oil pollution. The "Torrey Canyon" is a cautionary tale to keep before us.
I suggest that this will not be the last that we shall have to say about nuclear hazard and liability. I would remind hon. Members that nuclear power has now come of age. This point was stressed strongly in the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology when it looked at the civil nuclear programme. It is no longer an esoteric scientific


adventure. Nuclear power stations are part of normal power programmes today. It follows from that that there will be more use of nuclear fuels and, as many hon. Members know, there is a wide variety of them. Furthermore, we know that radioactive isotopes are used increasingly as trace elements in industry. There is a greater use of them in medicine, in research and in survey work. They are being used considerably by hydrographers and water engineers. Therefore, it is right that we should make adequate provision for anything that might go wrong. Then there is the whole subject of nuclear-powered vessels. It would be interesting to know whether these Conventions and the Act cover the future use of nuclear-powered vessels in the merchant marines of the world.
I anticipate an increasing international trade in nuclear substances, and that there will be an increasing number of nuclear installations. In my view, the majority of those installations will be built by international companies, in the form of consortia, large companies of an international nature, or by ad hoc agreements between companies across frontiers. It therefore means that there will be more trade and more trafficking in substances in which there is a nuclear hazard.
It is essential that our domestic law be kept up to date. I go further. It is essential that our domestic law should anticipate developments so far as is technically possible. We all know how often our law gets behind events. This raises, in the subject before us today, even greater problems. We all agree that this cannot be dealt with purely domestically. It must be dealt with internationally.
This raises the problem: how are the appropriate international Conventions kept up to date? It is difficult to keep our domestic law up to date. I suggest that it is even harder to keep international Conventions up to date. We not only have to agree an international Convention; we have to persuade all the signatories to it to ratify and implement it in their own domestic law. Therefore, it is a three-tier operation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure us that the necessary international machinery is there to ensure that these Conventions are kept up to date.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that we must bend over backwards to ensure that the risks of nuclear damage are as low as possible and that we should err on the generous side on the question of liability and compensation for damages.
I suggest that, about radiation hazards, many people have, deep down, a fear, a disquiet, which they do not have about other hazards which may, in practice, be more common. That is because they cannot see radiation, but they can see a motor car. Many people are rather cavalier in their attitude to road risks. They take them as part of their normal lives without worrying too much about them. But fear about radiation, particularly with overtones of nuclear war which are carried through into the civil use of nuclear substances, is something deep in many people's emotions. Therefore, I suggest that both in our international commitments and in our domestic law this hazard is one which we should over-insure. Really, we need belt and braces in this case.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, the safety record of the nuclear industry has been the most remarkable of any industry in the history of technology. I know of no industry which has developed from scratch to the level which it has reached today with so few casualties and so little damage. Compared with the development of coal mining, the iron and steel industry, the development of the motor car and the railways, the casualties as a result of nuclear damage have been minimal. We all know that at Harwell the danger is not the nuclear installations; it is the Oxford to Newbury road. I hope that the Committee has taken on board what the Parliamentary Secretary has told us: that as yet there have been no claims under the original Act. Therefore, what we are amending is, again, belt and braces.
I now turn to the changes in the Bill. I find Clause 1 highly technical. Therefore, I will defer any comments till we get to Standing Committee, and, possibly on the Question That the Clause stand part of the Bill, we might have a word about it.

Clause 2 is the direct consequence of devaluation. It must be right internationally to keep the figure we implement in our domestic law up to the true


international value. That was implicit in the Conventions which we signed.

Clause 3 seems a sensible extension of the coverage of these Conventions and must be agreeable to the Committee.

I should put to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee the wider point raised by the Bill: how do we cope with the changing nuclear scene? Should we do it by amending legislation, which has to go through the whole Parliamentary process, or should we write into the Bill or into the substantive Act delegated powers so that changes can be made more rapidly by Statutory Instruments? That is often a convenient way of altering the detail of an Act.

It seems to me that at present it is right that this should be done by amending legislation, though I should look to some point in future, when we can see the uses of nuclear substances more clearly, when it should be possible to give general powers to implement conventions through Statutory Instruments. That is a personal view. However, I am sure that it is right at this stage to proceed by amending legislation rather than by delegated legislation.

Finally, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how our Government, with partner Governments to these Conventions, propose to keep these Conventions up to date. Will the instrument be the International Atomic Energy Agency? Shall we work through the European Nuclear Energy Agency, the O.E.C.D., or simply by multilateral discussions? I think the latter is the least satisfactory because it is not permanent. I do not know whether I am right in assuming that the main instrument will be the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With those comments I welcome the Bill.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I do not think that the Committee will quarrel with the statement by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) that, concerning nuclear power stations and nuclear installations, there have not been the sad, tragic incidents or accidents which can be associated with other industries that give sources of power. I remember having a discussion with a nuclear expert on the future pattern of power and what rôle nuclear energy

would play. I was shaken when he said that it would depend largely on whether there were any serious accidents in nuclear power stations. Considering it came from an expert, I did not think that that was a very dogmatic and confident statement that we would not have serious accidents. However, our technical expertise has taught us that we are probably siting these installations correctly and that it is improbable that anything disastrous will happen. We have in Scotland a nuclear power station which has broken down, but it is merely a technical breakdown. There is no hazard associated with it. Nevertheless, these things occur.
My purpose in taking part in the debate is to put a specific question to the Parliamentary Secretary. We are told that within the Bill there are certain insurance provisions which are carried out internationally. From time to time I have quoted reports from the international Press in which allegations have been made that strange things have happened because of the discharge of nuclear effluent. For instance, I remember quoting a report which alleged that fish with two heads had been caught. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but this is what was reported. The report suggested that because of the discharge of nuclear effluent into the sea marine life had been damaged. I do not know whether it is factual, but papers have been submitted on this matter suggesting that, because of the discharge of nuclear effluent, damage has been caused to marine life. We are talking about safety. It is no use talking about adequate financial insurance provisions, and saying that everything is safe and that we can be complacent because nothing has happened, if, in the discharge of nuclear effluent in the sea, marine life is being damaged. Surely we have some responsibility to discuss this aspect to some extent in considering the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend is knowledgeable on this. Therefore, I should be obliged if he would make some comment on it.

10.57 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said that it was a good precedent


that, on the last occasion when the matter was before the House, of the four speeches made three came from the Front Benches. That seemed to me to deserve correction. I hope that my hon. Friend will in future take part in the debates on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, for in those debates the position is reversed because a Front Bench speech is a rare thing indeed.
I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the 1965 Bill. I recall the confusion in which hon. Members found themselves because of the complication of this subject and the lack of knowledge which we had to discuss the highly technical matters. We spent most of our time arguing whether the word "injury" was better than the word "hurt". The Government, in their munificence, came back to the House on Report and agreed to substitute the word "injury" for "hurt" throughout the Bill. That was about the sum of the improvements which we made.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what exports there have been of nuclear material and equipment since that time. One of the reasons we were asked to give a Second Reading to that Bill was that it would result in increased exports of nuclear material and equipment. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether this has transpired, and what the figures have been. I believe that there have been very small exports of nuclear vessels, stations and material. This is disappointing. I hope we may be told why this is so.
I should like to make two points on the Bill. First, I am not absolutely clear why this liability cannot be insured, and treated as an insurance matter. The operators of nuclear stations and nuclear isotopes and those who engage in carrying them round the world could be asked to pay premiums to insure against the risks which they are causing. As far as I can make out, the whole liability for any explosion or damage which might occur falls fairly and squarely upon the British taxpayer. Though it may be right, in view of the delicate nature of the subject, to put the ultimate responsibility on the Exchequer, I do not see why those who cause the risks to arise by operating nuclear plants should not be

required to make at least a contribution by way of premiums.
The right thing to do is to lay down certain statutory requirements for insurance and require nuclear operators to insure in an insurance market against any risk which might occur. It is compulsory to insure a motor car against third party accidents. That does not mean that the taxpayer has to pay every time there is an accident. Not a bit. The insurance risk is carried by the companies and premiums are paid according to the total amount which has to be paid out. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why we cannot treat this matter in the same way.
I know that it is a bit late in the day to suggest this alteration, but in thinking about the Bill over the weekend I asked myself: Why should we be troubled with this matter? Why should this not be handled by the normal insurance market? Why should the British taxpayer be asked to guarantee the £50 million which we are told in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is the greatest possible burden upon the taxpayer?
It seems that one of the penalties of the profligate conduct of our affairs by the Government is that we must have this Measure. The reason is devaluation. It is because the limits are now too low in terms of dollars to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Conventions.
What will happen next time we have devaluation? Shall we need to give up another March Wednesday morning, with the sun shining on the Thames, to discuss a similar Bill because the Government have devalued the £? After all, France devalued nine times before stabilising the franc. Are there likely to be nine Bills of this kind to deal with nine devaluations of the £? This seems to be an odd reason to trouble Parliament, particularly when there are so many important matters needing legislation for which the Government constantly say that they cannot find Parliamentary time. The fact that we have this piffling little Bill shows that the Government have their priorities wrong. Instead of writing £50 million into the Bill, why not write in £200 million so that the Government have ample scope to destroy our currency and deflate the £? They would then have ample funds


to squander without having to bother Parliament with a Bill of this kind.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh asked, why cannot this be dealt with by an Order in Council, if the limits must be raised because there has been a further fall in the value of the £? Such a procedure could go through with little discussion and the full force of a Bill would not be necessary. Alternatively, instead of mentioning £50 million we could state the sum of 120 million dollars so that every time the Government devalue the £ the Bill would hold good.
The Government have gone to great lengths at Basle to guarantee the deposits of foreign holders of sterling in Britain. They have also taken care to see that Parliament cannot debate that because it is a purely administrative action. Yet on a matter like this we have an opportunity to debate the increased amount of dollars we must pay to cover these liabilities, and I suggest a more flexible procedure should be thought out. If the Government will not accept any of my solutions, there is a strong reason for changing the whole basis of nuclear insurance. If we must have a Bill like this every time there is a change in the value of the £, we shall need a sort of floating Bill; although many hon. Members believe, like me, that we should have floating exchange rates.
We must bring our rules up to date in line with our obligations under the Conventions. For this reason I support the Measure, although it is a clumsy way of dealing with the issue. We must have a more sensible and more flexible approach.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) won my admiration. Any hon. Member who can think about a Nuclear Installations Bill not only during the week but during the weekend deserves credit.
I can claim to have played a small part in previous debates on Measures of this kind. I was the lone back bencher who was referred to by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) who took part in the debate in November, 1964. It was my first speech after being returned to Parliament, although I doubt whether anyone, apart from myself had noticed my absence. By a remarkable coincidence,

the last speech I made prior to that occasion was on the first of these Measures, which was in 1959.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury should note that while it is easy to say that a Bill like this, which is almost a Departmental Measure, has omitted certain things, that might have been said in 1959 when the then Conservative Government introduced the first Measure. Had the hon. Member put his ideas more moderately I would have agreed with all he said. Nevertheless, I agreed with some of his remarks because it is curious that the financial limits should have been drawn so narrowly in earlier Measures. Just one devaluation was needed to throw everything out.
This country has taken a lead in the practice and installation of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I do not know if the Americans have overtaken us, but for a considerable time we have been the largest manufacturers of nuclear power stations for electric energy. It seems odd, therefore, that we should now be following, rather than taking a lead in, these Conventions. May we have an assurance that, in terms of compensation for losses resulting from nuclear accidents, this country is, in international standards, in the forefront? That should be our position. If it were we would not. as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, need to be sitting here on a fine March morning discussing a Bill of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was right to detect a note of complacency on the part of Ministers about the likelihood of nuclear accidents. They are unlikely, and long may that remain the position, but there is always a first time, and the great risk is that if there were a large-scale disaster in a nuclear power station the public outcry would be such that there might be panic pressure brought to bear on the Government to close all power stations. Since more and more of our electricity supply is becoming dependent on nuclear power stations, the question of nuclear safety cannot be stressed too highly.
The standards of safety in nuclear stations depend, first of all, on the skill and knowledge of the engineers and others who operate them. However, those who check them in the legal sense on


behalf of the Ministry are the inspectors appointed by the Department. May we have an assurance that there are enough inspectors and that they are of a sufficiently high quality to keep pace with latest technological developments? I know from experience that there was concern a few years ago in the electricity power industry about the nuclear inspectorate—I say nothing in criticism of these inspectors; they are devoted and hardworking people—and about whether the Ministry was having trouble recruiting them. We must ensure that they compare well technically with those in the industry whom they are supposed to check. May we be assured that the quality, standards and numbers of nuclear inspectors are being maintained?
I am grateful for the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. That is, in itself, difficult to comprehend, leaving aside the Bill. Clause 3 is headed, "Extension of compensation in certain cases", and seems to deal with circumstances in which there are mishaps or disasters involving an international liability and where there might be a claim against a Government Department or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum mentions:
… or in the case of a licensee to the extent to which the total claims were thereby taken above his insurance cover, there could be an extra charge to the votes.
In other words, the deficiency would have to be made good out of public funds. There is a specific reference to the Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments. I take it that this assumes that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish electricity boards which are actual or potential operators of nuclear power stations will look at this matter commercially.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) knows—the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology; I have the privilege of presiding over that body—much has been done in urging a reorganisation of the nuclear power industry. We in the Select Committee have done a lot of work in this connection. The Minister of Technology has taken a long time over it, but he is now supervising the reorganisation of the reactor

industry, and this will probably mean that parts of the organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority will be moved away from the Authority as such and into the control of industrial companies. This means that there will be new types of organisation in existence, some jointly publicly and privately owned, perhaps, and obviously the Bill will apply to them.
May we, therefore, have an assurance that this matter has been looked into to cover the complicated situation in which parts of the Atomic Energy Authority remain with the Authority as at present constituted while other parts are put under the control of more or less independent industrial companies? I would like to be certain that the liability is fully covered.
This is obviously a necessary Bill. It is the kind of Measure which we must have now that we are developing our nuclear power industry to such a tremendous extent. Nevertheless, I am startled that it should have been necessary to introduce a Measure which is, to a great extent, almost entirely financial.

11.16 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is a great authority on the subject, and I would hesitate to try to follow him in his technical remarks.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be kind enough to tell the Committee why in Clause 2 the figure of 120 million dollars was not substituted for £50 million. It seems to me that such a change would save the time of future Committees and time on Second Reading debates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) so well brought out, the risks of a further devaluation are very real. This is an important consideration, because I feel that apart from dealing with one or two technical matters, which could surely have been introduced by some other method anyway, we should not now be consuming our time in this Committee.
In saying that the figure should be 120 million dollars rather than £50 million, I remind the Committee that the reserves of the country have been run down very rapidly since the Labour Party came to power. Our liquid reserves,


not to say our total reserves held in the form of private investments overseas, amounted in October, 1964, to £2,224 million, of which the direct reserves amounted to just over £900 million. The value of the dollar portfolio owned by the Government was £440 million. There were also the second-rank reserves in the I.M.F. drawing rights, then amounting to £871 million. The first thing that happened was that the dollar portfolio was liquidated for £520 million. After that, the I.M.F. drawing rights were fully drawn and enlarged. Our position now, in the short space of four and a half years, is that our entire liquid reserves have been effectively drawn and overdrawn, if one takes into consideration the extent of our international indebtedness, which, by the best estimates, now amounts to some £3,000 million. That does not include the extent of the Basle drawings, of which the country has been left in ignorance.
It is interesting to consider just how we have arrived at this position. First, there has been little or no economic growth. Second, such economic growth as there has been has been subsumed by the public sector. I am encouraged in that assertion by a very helpful Question by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens)——

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order. Are we also discussing the Budget or other financial questions in relation to this Bill?

The Chairman: I was about to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) to the fact that we cannot now have a full scale economic debate. Even though this is a Second Reading Committee, what the hon. Gentleman says must be related to the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. This Bill is entirely caused by devaluation, so presumably it would be in order to assess the prospects of a further devaluation, and to suggest that we should build into the Bill a method by which it would be proof against further devaluation. In that case, the whole economic situation seems to me to be relevant, though, of course, it must be related to the context of the Bill.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Horsham was in order at the beginning of his remarks, but we cannot now have a full-scale inquiry into the economic situation of the country.

Mr. Hordern: I am very flattered that my remarks so far may have led hon. Members to suppose that I was giving a fully comprehensive account of the economic situation of the country. I was drawing a slender background to support my argument that the economic situation leads me to recommend that the figure of 120 million dollars be inserted rather than £50 million.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Why is the hon. Gentleman interested only in dollars? Why not in all the other currencies within the Conventions? If he wishes to amend that part of the Bill, will he introduce all the other currencies?

Mr. Hordern: I understand the Conventions specify dollars, so there is a difficulty in expressing the amount in other currencies. The question is apt because it lends support to my argument that we shall not be able to avoid another Bill of this kind unless the amount is specified in dollars or the Government alter their method of financing their expenditure by the printing of Treasury bills and the activities of the Government broker in the gilt-edged market. I take the point that if I were to describe those activities with particular reference to his buying for cash pieces of paper which are showered upon him by an ungrateful public, because of the low state of the gilt-edged market, that might be drawing the debate rather more widely than the Chair would wish. I shall not go into the other arguments about the way in which a proper system of Government control over expenditure must have recourse to control of the money supply because they are not strictly within the context of the Bill, but I recommend that a very simple way to avoid going to the House again with a Bill of this kind is by inserting the figure of 120 million dollars instead of £50 million.

The Chairman: If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to speak again, according to the Second Reading rules, he will have to ask the permission of the Committee.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: By leave of the Committee. I hope that at least some hon. Members will forgive me if I do not follow them too far along the paths they have taken, not because I would not wish to do so on the right occasion, but because I do not think that this morning it would be appropriate.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) asked whether the Bill as proposed would cover the position of nuclear-powered ships. The answer is that it does not cover nuclear ships, which would require separate legislation, and if there were an issue involved here it would be a matter for us and other countries to pursue through the appropriate machinery.
That brings me to the main question which I think he posed, namely, what procedures we adopt to keep this kind of legislation under review, and to consider how far further legislation or an extension of international Conventions might be needed. The machinery used is that of the I.A.E.A. and O.E.C.D. I think that it is the Paris Convention that requires a conference to be called five years after its ratification, which, I think, is in 1973, for a review of its operation, which could cover any up-dating of procedures. The Vienna Convention has a similar provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) asked whether we had reason to believe that damage is being caused to marine life by nuclear waste. We have no evidence of this, despite the occasional stories in the Press. It may be that, in casting their minds back, my hon. Friend and others have confused this with some of the reports at the time of certain nuclear military tests in the Pacific Ocean many years ago, when there were most unfortunate results, but they had no connection with the waste from the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Much stress has been laid on the question of the specific figures written into the Act and now being amended by the Bill. I was asked why we could not find another way of writing into the Bill a figure—120 million dollars was suggested—which would avoid bringing further Bills to the Committee in the future. It

would be possible to write into the Bill the equivalent of the units used in the Brussels Convention. It would be possible to give power to do this by means of a Ministerial order. But the answer is that I and the Government are confident in the exchange rates of the £ and do not see the need for this.

Mr. Ridley: Is the figure designed to increase confidence? Is it a result of the Government's desire to impress the Zurich bankers with our determination not to devalue again?

Mr. Freeson: I am tempted to suggest that the hon. Gentleman might write a letter to the Daily Telegraph or The Times on the subject. I shall not pursue him along that path. The Bill is concerned with one particular set of activities of the Government in connection with international Conventions. I do not propose to contribute to a debate on the Budget this morning.
I was also asked why the operators should not insure. The answer is that they do. The Conventions require it, and commercial operators carry £5 million insurance. They carry all liability in order to avoid the pyramiding of insurance by everyone who might be involved in an accident, if it occurred. That is why we are seeking to avoid by further amendment of the principal Act any possibility of people seeking damages by negligence, in order to prevent a repercussive effect arising from any accident which might occur in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) also raised a question about the writing of figures into the Bill, with which I have dealt. His other chief question was whether, in the light of reports of some years ago that there were difficulties with recruitment to the nuclear inspectorate, we were satisfied with the competence of the inspectorate. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is fully satisfied as to the establishment of the nuclear inspectorate, and that it is fully capable, in numbers and expertise, of carrying out its duties in regard to safety in the nuclear industry. It keeps fully in touch with developments in this field, and we have no worries on that score. I do not say that complacently. There is an important duty


on the Government here, which the inspectorate is carrying out.
I think that I have dealt with all the points put to me. I can do no more than ask the Committee to support the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE


Rogers, Mr. George (Chairman)
Horden Mr.


Eadie, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Adam


Fortescue, Mr.
McNair-Wilson Mr.


Freeson, Mr.
Plamar, Mr.


Gardner, Mr.
Price, Mr. David


Griffiths, Mr. David
Ridely, Mr.


Griffiths, Mr. Eddie
Weatherill, Mr.


Harper, Mr.
Woof, Mr.


Haseldine, Mr.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Nuclear Installations Bill ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at half-past Eleven o'clock.